Va. Court Opinions

Supreme Court Cases

Virginia_supreme_court_seal[1]

 

Case Name Summary of Case Date
Lambert v. Sea Oats Condo. Ass’n In a suit where a condominium unit owner prevailed on a claim against the condominium association for the full amount of the $500 sought in damages, but the circuit court only awarded her $375 in attorney’s fees out of more than $9,500 sought under the provisions of Code § 55-79.53(A), the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to consider seven relevant and non-exclusive factors that should have been given significant weight, including the results obtained in the action, and the damages awarded in comparison to the damages sought. Where, as here, a statutory basis for fee recovery applies, a court may not simply conclude that many thousands of dollars in legal fees are per se unreasonable where the claim is as small as $500. A party seeking to recover fees as the prevailing party in a litigation need not prove the attorney’s fees in her case in chief, and it is often appropriate to delay the issue of awarding attorney’s fees until the disposition on the merits reveals which party has actually prevailed. That is why Rule 3:25(D) allows a trial court to establish a procedure before trial for deciding attorney’s fees in cases where they may be awarded. Nor is it necessary for a party to provide advance notice of the amount of fees it will seek if successful. The party who may be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees is merely required to notify the opposing party that it will seek them if it prevails, as required by Rule 3:25(B). The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. 4/13/17
Shepherd v. Conde In a declaratory judgment action under the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act, Code §§ 55-508 to 55-516.2, the circuit court erred in ruling that a recorded declaration for a six-lot subdivision was not enforceable under the Act, and that an unincorporated architectural control committee created by that instrument failed to qualify as a property owners’ association under the Act. A declaration must expressly both impose responsibilities and authorize assessments before an entity qualifies as a property owners’ association under the Act. Here, the demarcation of a road as an easement on the plat incorporated into the declaration was sufficient to fulfill the designation requirement for a common area, and the terms of the declaration expressly impose upon the architectural control committee a duty to maintain the road and authorize it to impose assessments for the costs of such maintenance. Consequently, both the declaration and the committee fulfill the qualifications imposed by the Act. However, all references in the declaration to any entity having power or responsibility under the Act refer to the architectural control committee, not an unincorporated property owners’ association, and nothing in the declaration either imposes upon the association a duty to maintain the road or authorizes it to impose assessments for road maintenance costs. This association therefore does not qualify as a property owners’ association under the Act, and the circuit court did not err by so ruling. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the action is remanded. 04/13/2017
Forest Lakes Community Ass’n, Inc. v. United Land Corp. of America

Two property owners’ associations filed suit against the owners and developers of parcels in a shopping center, claiming the shopping center’s discharged sediment into a creek that flowed into a lake owned by the POAs.

The suit included two common-law rights of action: trespass and nuisance.

The Albemarle Circuit Court Defendant’s pleas in bar, concluding sediment discharge had been occurring for more than five years.

The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Albemarle Circuit Court did not err in applying the statute of limitations.

2/16/17
Bodak, et al. v. Mayne, et al. Court issued an unpublished order finding that a private easement exists on a lot for access by lot owners and a POA to the Shenandoah River that was established on a subdivision plat. 12/8/16
Hartmann, et al v. Carriage Court Homeowners Association, Inc. Court found no reversible error in the judgment of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County that association was a valid property owners’ association under the Property Owners’ Association Act. (Unpublished). 10/20/16
Saddlebrook Estates v. City of Suffolk  In an action by a homeowners’ association to stay judicial sale of a parcel serving as an equestrian center under the plan and declaration of the development, and for declaratory relief, the circuit court erred in ruling that a parcel of a cluster-development subdivision designated as an equestrian center did not fall within the meaning of “open or common space” as defined by Code § 58.1-3284.1 on the ground that it is a commercial enterprise. The statute provides that all real property used for open or common space shall be construed as having no value in itself for assessment purposes. Its only value lies in the value that is attached to the residential or commercial property which has a right by easement, covenant, deed or other interest. The common area is not exempt from taxation but the statute sets the value for assessment purposes as the value the common area provides to the dominant estate (i.e., the lots in the subdivision, which benefit from the easement). This is not the value of the fee of the common area itself, but the value by which access to and use of the common area augments the value of the lots. The first paragraph of Code § 58.1-3284.1(A) then makes the owners of the dominant estate (i.e., the owners of the lots), and only them, liable for the tax assessed on that value in proportion to each owner’s respective lot as a percentage of the whole subdivision. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, the assessments are vacated, and final judgment is entered for the association.  6/2/16
Tvardek v. Powhatan Village HOA In a declaratory judgment action by landowners challenging an amendment to a declaration of protective covenants by a homeowners association – purportedly adopted by the requisite majority of the association’s members five years prior to the plaintiffs’ commencement of this action – the circuit court erred in granted a special plea in bar dismissing the action on the basis of the one-year statute of limitations established in Code § 55-515.1(E). The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. 2/12/16
Kingsmill Community Services Association v. Kings-Mill United, Inc., et al Supreme Court overturned trial court determination that case not ripe for adjudication related to three-count complaint related to (i) the number of directors to be elected by KCSA’s members versus the number to be appointed; (ii) whether “cumulative voting” is permissible whereby a member could cast multiple votes for a single candidate; and (iii) whether members who are co-owners of a Kingsmill lot or housing unit are permitted to cast votes individually for different candidates. (Unpublished). 12/10/15
Commonwealth v. Windsor Plaza Condo. Ass’n; Fishel v. Windsor Plaza Condo. Ass’n In proceedings under the Virginia Fair Housing Law and the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Attorney General alleged that a condominium association violated Code § 36-96.3(B)(ii) in failing to make reasonable accommodations necessary to afford a disabled unit owner equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling, and the owner and his wife intervened. The Commonwealth’s assignment claiming error in dismissal of four individual defendants is dismissed for failure to join these parties on appeal. The circuit court’s ruling that evidence on conversion of bicycle storage space into an accessible parking space supported a claim for reasonable modification under Code § 36-96.3(B)(i), rather than a claim for reasonable accommodation under Code § 36-96.3(B)(ii), is affirmed, as is its grant of a motion to strike. It erred in ruling that the condominium’s request for attorney’s fees against the Commonwealth was not barred by sovereign immunity, but the error was harmless since no fees were awarded. Sustaining of the condominium’s plea in bar is affirmed because the statute of limitations had expired when the disabled unit owner and his wife filed their intervening complaint. Claims asserted under Code §§ 36-96.3(A)(8) and (9) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1), (2) and (3)(B) do not concern continuing violations, and accrued on August 23, 2007; thus, the statutes of limitations in Code § 36-96.18 and 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A) bar those claims. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award the condominium complex attorney’s fees.  12/31/14
Robinson-Huntley v. G.W. Carver Mut. Homes Ass’n In an action by the owner of a unit in a cooperative housing association seeking declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the association’s failure to pay plumbing expenses she incurred, under the evidence and the parties’ practical construction of their contract, the circuit court’s finding that plaintiff failed to prove that they intended the association to make the repairs she sought was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it and it will be affirmed. The court may award attorney’s fees pursuant to Code § 55-492(A) in an appropriate case, but here the circuit court noted that plaintiff had prevailed on only two of her several claims. That is a relevant factor to consider in weighing whether a case is “appropriate” and the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to make such an award. The judgment is affirmed. 4/17/14
Newberry Station Homeowners Ass’n v. Board of Supervisors In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging a county’s approval of a special exception, Code § 15.2-852(A) did not prohibit two members of a board of supervisors from participating in and voting on the application based on their relationship with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which is not a “corporation” under the terms of this statute dealing with financial conflicts of interest. Nor did the circuit court err in finding sufficient evidence to make approval of the special exception application fairly debatable. To the extent plaintiffs adduced evidence of unreasonableness of the board’s action, the board met the challenge by some evidence of reasonableness, and its decision must be sustained. The circuit court therefore did not err in awarding the board summary judgment, and its judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed. 4/18/13
Lynnhaven Dunes Condo. Ass’n v. City of Virginia Beach An authorizing ordinance fully encompassed the actions of a city in bringing a quiet title action in the nature of a condemnation proceeding, and the evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court’s ruling that the city had proved that it had acquired certain easements by implied dedication. The circuit court erred, however, in ruling that a condominium association’s loss of riparian rights caused by the creation of a sand beach was non-compensable. The beach replenishment project was not sufficiently related to the dredging of an inlet for navigation purposes because failure to place sand on a beach adjacent to plaintiff’s property would not have substantially impaired the dredging operation. Accordingly, rulings of the circuit court are affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the matter is remanded for a just compensation hearing to determine the value of plaintiff’s riparian rights. 11/1/12
3232 Page Ave. Condo. Ass’n v. City of Virginia Beach In a city’s suit to condemn certain easements in connection with a beach replenishment project, while alternatively claiming ownership of the easements, the circuit court had jurisdiction and was required to determine ownership of the condemned property as part of the condemnation proceeding. Based on public use and the city’s exercise of dominion and control over the property, there was sufficient evidence proving that there was an implied dedication of this property and acceptance thereof by the city. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in finding that the city had acquired ownership of the easements by implied dedication. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. 11/1/12
Fein v. Payandeh In a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a certain subdivision of land parcels was void for violation of applicable restrictive covenants, the circuit court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment – and denying plaintiff’s amended cross-motion for summary judgment – on plaintiff’s claim that the subdivision violated the restrictive covenant based on an interpretation of the covenant implying a requirement to comply with the 1997 version of the zoning ordinance in addition to the subdivision ordinance. However, the circuit court erred in refusing to consider plaintiff’s claim that the subdivision violated certain provisions of the 1997 version of the subdivision ordinance. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the circuit court for consideration of that claim. 11/01/12
Lynnhaven Dunes Condo. Ass’n v. City of Virginia Beach An authorizing ordinance fully encompassed the actions of a city in bringing a quiet title action in the nature of a condemnation proceeding, and the evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court’s ruling that the city had proved that it had acquired certain easements by implied dedication. The circuit court erred, however, in ruling that a condominium association’s loss of riparian rights caused by the creation of a sand beach was non-compensable. The beach replenishment project was not sufficiently related to the dredging of an inlet for navigation purposes because failure to place sand on a beach adjacent to plaintiff’s property would not have substantially impaired the dredging operation. Accordingly, rulings of the circuit court are affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the matter is remanded for a just compensation hearing to determine the value of plaintiff’s riparian rights. 11/01/12
Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Batt Members sued a homeowners association for damages and a declaration that its parking policy and a later purported amendment to the community declaration on parking rights and common areas were invalid. A homeowners association that assigns parking spaces in common areas must treat all lot owners equally, unless the declaration expressly provides otherwise. The declaration in this case did not do so, and the circuit court did not err in ruling that parking spaces in the common area must be assigned equally among all lot owners. That court’s determination that the meeting at which a declaration amendment was adopted was improper for lack of adequate notice forms an independent basis to affirm its ruling that the amendment was invalid. This record does not support an award of compensatory damages for diminution of property value, and that portion of the judgment is reversed. The award of compensatory damages for the portion of assessments attributable to maintenance of the common area is affirmed. Code § 55-515(A) allows lot owners and occupants as well as associations to recover litigation expenses in successful suits to enforce compliance with a declaration. In this action, only the breach of contract claim satisfies applicable criteria. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs and fees on that claim and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of that award. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, final judgment is entered in part, and the case is remanded.  9/14/12
Zinone v. Lee’s Crossing Homeowners Ass’n In a property owner’s suit against a homeowners association for declaratory and injunctive relief, among other remedies, the circuit court did not err in concluding that language of the association’s declaration allowing the declarant of a recorded declaration to make unilateral amendments to its terms was not inconsistent with the Virginia Property Owners Association Act, which contains provisions concerning the ability to amend a declaration that are neither mandatory nor exclusive and, thus, can be controlled by the express provisions of a particular declaration. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. 9/16/11
Condominium Services, Inc. v. First Owners’ Ass’n of 4600 Condominium, Inc. In a lawsuit between a condominium owners’ association and a management services company, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the association’s demurrers and striking an affirmative defense. The agreement between the parties, although it referenced the association’s bylaws, did not require a three-fourths vote of the unit owners before the association could terminate the services of the management agent. The circuit court also did not err in denying a motion to dismiss the association’s conversion claim, because the agreement had been terminated at the time the management company caused over $90,000 in fees to be deposited to its own bank account, and it was not error to grant summary judgment on the conversion claim. Expert witness designations, testimony regarding damages, punitive damages and remittitur are also discussed. The judgment is affirmed. 4/21/11
Abi-Najm v. Concord Condominium, LLC In two actions against a condominium company by purchasers of units in the complex, the trial court erred when it sustained demurrers to breach of contract claims in the complaints on the grounds that they were barred by the merger doctrine, because the deeds were nothing more than instruments intended to convey title and there was no patent and irreconcilable conflict between the purchase contracts and the deeds. The circuit court also erred in dismissing claims for violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act under the economic loss doctrine because the plaintiffs alleged a statutory duty that existed independent of the parties’ contracts. The plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendant made misrepresentations before the contracts were entered, with a present intention not to perform the promised obligations, alleged an actionable claim for fraud in the inducement that also finds its source outside the parties’ contracts and should not have been dismissed on demurrers. The judgments are reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings. 9/16/10
Luria v. Board of Dir. of Westbriar Condo. Unit Owners Ass’n In a multi-count suit by a condominium unit owners’ association against developers of the complex, which included allegations of breach of fiduciary duty to the association as a creditor, and improper transfers and distributions by the entities involved in developing the complex, it is assumed – without so deciding – that a managing member of a limited liability company may owe a fiduciary duty to a third party creditor under certain circumstances. However, in this case the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff association was a creditor until the defendants had actual notice of facts supporting a specific potential statutory warranty claim under Code § 55-79.79. Because all of the transfers and distributions made in this case occurred before such notice, the circuit court erred in finding breach of fiduciary duty, and its judgment on these counts is reversed. 2/27/09
Dogwood Valley Citizens Ass’n v. Shifflett In a proceeding which followed from a homeowners’ association’s levy of special assessments and subsequent warrants in debt against lot owners in a development, the circuit court did not err in determining that the association, a non-stock Virginia corporation, did not qualify as a property owners’ association under the Property Owners’ Association Act, Code §§ 55-508 through -516.2. Because the filing of the association’s articles of incorporation and bylaws in the land records did not constitute a declaration imposing upon it operational or maintenance responsibilities for the common areas or roads of the development, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. 1/11/08
Scott v. Walker In a suit to enforce a restrictive covenant against property being used for other than for residential purposes, in which the plaintiff homeowners sought to enjoin the short-term rental of a single-family dwelling in the same subdivision, the restrictive covenant is ambiguous and is construed in favor of the free use of land. The judgment of the circuit court enjoining the nightly and weekly rental of the property at issue is reversed and final judgment is entered for the lessors. 6/8/07
Westlake Properties v. Westlake Pointe Ass’n In a property owners’ association’s action against the corporate developer of a townhome community and the construction contractor, no error or abuse of discretion is found in the trial court’s rulings allowing the association to proceed on a damage claim involving nonparty property owners, finding that the association had standing, concluding that individual property owners were not necessary parties, denying a mistrial arising from impeachment of a witness, or instructing the jury concerning proximate causation and damages. The judgment is affirmed. 1/12/07
Kuznicki v. Mason  In a suit by condominium unit owners involving a limited common element, under Code §§ 55-79.53(A) and -79.80(B) only a condominium unit owners’ association has standing to sue for claims related to common elements and limited common elements. As a result, the circuit court erred by failing to address the standing issue asserted by the defendants, but nevertheless properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint; therefore, the judgment is affirmed.  1/12/07
White v. Boundary Association, Inc. A board of directors of a property owners’ association was not authorized under the applicable declaration to assign parking spaces for the exclusive use of individual unit owners, and the parking policy is invalid because it effectively, and without authority, divested the unit owners of a property right that runs with and binds the land. The circuit court’s judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered. The case is remanded for determination of an award of attorneys’ fees allowed under provisions of the Property Owners’ Association Act. 1/13/06
Westgate at Williamsburg Condo Ass’n v. Philip Richardson Co. Inclusion of a particular parcel of land in the property description and plat of a condominium declaration was not a scrivener’s error. Therefore, the developers were not entitled to remove that parcel from the condominium unilaterally by a “correction amendment” under Code § 55-79.71(F). Because the trial court erred in granting judgment to the developers, they were not entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees under Code § 55-79.53(A). The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. 11/4/05
Turner v. Caplan In a case concerning whether the pasturing of a horse within a residential subdivision either violated certain restrictive covenants and exceptions thereto set out in a recorded declaration, or constituted an enjoinable nuisance, the trial court erred in its interpretation of the legal effect of the covenants and exceptions. While it did not err in finding that a nuisance existed, the court erred in the scope of the remedy it prescribed on that basis. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered. 6/10/04
Barris v. Keswick Homes, L.L.C. The trial court erred in ruling that a lot in a residential subdivision is no longer subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting resubdivision without prior written consent of three-fourths of the current lot owners. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. 6/10/04
Perel v. Brannan The judgment in a suit involving restrictive covenants for building set-backs and buffer areas in a residential subdivision is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. Issues are addressed with respect to specific enforcement of covenants, approvals by an architectural review committee under a recorded declaration, failure to plead claims for particular equitable relief, various equitable defenses, and the award of attorneys’ fees. 4/23/04
River Heights v. Batten The trial court correctly held that owners of lots in a subdivision sufficiently showed a justiciable controversy under Virginia’s declaratory judgment statutes, and correctly determined that a restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial use of certain lots within the subdivision was not rendered unenforceable, either as the result of a plat note restricting access to the lots if they were to be put to residential uses, or as the result of changed conditions. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 1/16/04
Dogwood Valley v. Winkelman The circuit court erred in concluding that a particular community association was a property owners’ association within the meaning of the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act. That portion of the decree is reversed, and other portions of the decree based on the Act are vacated. Other rulings are affirmed, and final judgment is entered. 1/16/04
Dana v. 313 Freemason In a case arising from the development and sale of condominium property, the trial court did not err in piercing the corporate veil of a close corporation to assess liability for a judgment against the corporation upon its stockholders. The judgment is affirmed. 10/31/03
Klaiber v. Freemason Associates In separate suits asserting various claims for damages arising from the conveyances of two individual units of a condominium, the trial judge did not err in ruling as a matter of law that plaintiffs failed to allege a compensable loss sufficient to support claims of fraud and false advertising, but erred in granting summary judgment against claims for breach of contract and breach of statutory warranties arising from the same transactions. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded. 10/31/03
Atrium Unit Owners Assoc. v. King In a negligence case, the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could infer a causal connection between a condominium unit owners association’s alleged failure to use due care regarding a convenience key and the damages sustained by plaintiff in a burglary of her condominium. The judgment implementing a jury verdict for the plaintiff is reversed. 9/12/03
Board of Dir. Colchester Towne Council of Co-Owners v. Wachovia The trial court correctly determined that proceeds from the sale of a condominium unit pursuant to Code § 55-79.84(I) must be used to satisfy a first deed of trust lien before a condominium association’s lien for unpaid condominium fee assessments. The judgment is affirmed. 6/6/03
Mozley v. The Prestwould Board of Directors In litigation between a condominium owner and the owners’ association, the chancellor erred in interpreting Code § 55-79.84 but correctly awarded of attorneys’ fees and costs to the association board based on the provisions of Code § 55-79.53(A). The case is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and judgment is entered. The matter is also remanded for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and entry of final judgment. 11/1/02
Jefferson Green Unit Owners Ass’n v. Gwinn Although the circuit court erred in finding that a zoning proffer making recreational facilities available to a condominium by requiring payment of membership dues in a private recreational association is unconstitutional, the judgment requiring a unit owners’ association to re-establish membership in the recreational facility and to pay membership dues is affirmed. The circuit court correctly determined that the proffer does not violate the limitation in Code § 15.2-2297(A)(v). 9/14/01
HomeSide Lending v. Unit Owners Assoc. of Antietam Sq. Condo., et al. In a case commenced by a condominium owners’ association for unpaid assessments, Code § 55-79.84(A) establishes the applicable priority of liens and the part of the judgment of the circuit court directing certain disbursements for fees, court costs and repair expenses before payment of a note secured by the first deed of trust is reversed, the part of the judgment directing payment of fees of the special commissioner before payment of the note is affirmed, and the case is remanded. 1/12/01
Sugarland Run Homeowners Ass’n v. Halfmann In a wrongful death case involving a child on a bicycle, there was – as a matter of law -insufficient evidence to establish that any alleged defects in a pathway and its intersection with a street proximately caused the accident. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and final judgment entered for the defendant homeowners’ association. 9/15/00
Sully Station II Comm. Ass’n v. Dye In a dispute between a community association and eight of its members concerning a policy adopted with respect to parking in a common area of a residential community, the trial court did not err in declaring the policy void and unenforceable. The judgment is affirmed. 3/3/00
Board of Directors of the Tuckahoe Ass’n v. City of Richmond Because the trial court erred in ruling that a condominium association was entitled to be classified as residential for purposes of a city’s utility tax scheme, and in ruling that the individual unit owners should be treated as purchasers of residential utility services such that the association’s utility tax should be computed on this basis, its judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for the city. 1/8/99
Po River Water and Sewer v. Indian Acres Club A property owners’ association must pay a utility for services provided to common area facilities owned by the association, at rates fixed by the State Corporation Commission, since the association owns the common areas and received the services. Judgment of the trial court to the contrary is reversed. 1/9/98
Sloan v. Johnson Whether owners of lots in a subdivision may enforce express covenants that run
with the land.  Supreme Court entered a declaration that the restrictive covenants are enforceable and that the defendants may not construct a second house on their property.
9/12/97
Orchard Glen East v. Prince William County The trial court properly decided that a condominium development in which no individual units were sold or offered for sale by the developer was properly assessed for real estate taxes based on the value of the individual units as separate parcels rather than on the value of the development as a single parcel actually used as an apartment complex, and that judgment is affirmed. 9/12/97
Anderson v. Lake Arrowhead Civic Association Since the homeowners’ association in this case is not a property owners’ association as defined by Virginia law, but merely an assignee of the developer which operates as a voluntary community association, it cannot enforce any assessment in excess of the one provided in a covenant, which it can continue to collect provided it expends the monies for general maintenance. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded to determine which of the liens sought can be enforced to the extent of the covenant. 2/28/97
Basham v. Maplefied Homeowners Association, Inc. Supreme Court upheld Circuit Court –  Attorneys’ fee provision of the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act is
procedural in nature, and thus may be applied retroactively to respondents.
3/15/96
Sussex Community Services Ass’n v. Virginia Society for Mentally Retarded Children, Inc. Whether Code Section 36-96.6(C) (defining group homes as single family occupancy) applies retroactively to restrictive covenants recorded in 1975.  The Court held that the definition applied retroactively. 3/1/96
Lee’s Hill Homeowners v. Carter Since a developer and community association reserved the right to exchange and thereafter convey parts of the common area in the orderly subdivision and development of property, provided that the developer maintained the minimum “open space,” the lot owners’ easements are not fixed upon a particular parcel of land, but can be shifted from time to time to other parcels of land duly conveyed to the community 11/3/95
Lake Monticello Owners’ Assoc. v. Lake The trial court correctly found the board of directors of a nonstock corporation subject to the Property Owners’ Association Act improperly excluded certain proposals by lot owners from a proxy statement, but the court erred in finding certain bylaw provisions invalid. A declaratory judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff homeowner. 11/3/95
Bowman v. Wintergreen Property Owners Assoc. The trial court correctly held that certain restrictive covenants in a residential subdivision were violated by a homeowner who made changes in the appearance of his residence by displaying signs, decorations and other items on the outside of his house and on his deck. The injunction requiring the homeowner to remove the personal property is upheld. 9/15/95
River Place North Housing Corp. v. American Landmark Equity Corp. The trial court correctly ruled that a cooperative housing association was not permitted to obtain a personal money judgment against a purchaser at foreclosure for assessments of cooperative fees unpaid by the owners of proprietary leases which were the subject of the foreclosure, and that judgment is affirmed. 9/15/95
Raintree of Albermarle HOA v. Jones Whether a property owners association waived its right to enforce restrictive covenant against trucks.  Court applied the “substantial value” test, holding the association did not waive its right to enforce the covenant. 1/10/92
Lake of the Woods Association, Inc. v. McHugh, et al. Whether a right of first refusal (found in recorded Declaration) is subject to the rule against perpetuities.  The Court held that the rule against perpetuities should be applied to rights of first refusal. 6/9/89
Rotunda Condominium Unit Owners Ass’n v. Rotunda Associates Whether a condominium unit owners association had standing to bring an action on behalf of the individual unit owners, based on alleged defects in the construction of the common elements, whe
where the cause of action arose before July 1, 1981. The Court concluded that the association lacked standing.f
6/9/89
Montgomery v. Columbia Knolls Condominium Council of Co-Owners Whether a condominium unit owners’ association has the authority to replace windows within a unit and assess costs without the owners’ consent.  Nothing in the Condominium Act or the Condominium instruments authorizes the Council to improve the  unit against their will and at their expense. Court concluded the Council exceeded its authority. 6/13/86

Circuit Court Cases

Case Name Summary of Case (Court of Origin) Date
Winding Brook Owners Association, Inc. v. Thomlyn, LLC In action by property owners association for breach of settlement agreement, court awards $11,610.88 in principal and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $117,155.81 citing Lambert v. Sea Oats Condo. Ass’n. 7/26/17
Reid v. Meisenzahl, et al. Plaintiff may sue defendant residents/neighbors for private nuisance related to cigarette smoke.  Court grants demurrer on breach of contract claim because rules and regulations not contract between residents, association and/or managing agent.  Claim of private nuisance dismissed against association and managing agent, but not neighbor. 2/14/17
Evans v. Seven Springs Farm HOA

Declaration fails to expressly require association to maintain the common areas, and therefore Defendant is not a “Property Owners’ Association” under the POAA.

Merely stating that fees “shall be assessed” and “shall be apportioned,” and that those fees shall be used for maintenance of Lots and upkeep of roads, fails to bridge the gap of ambiguity to be considered an affirmative duty to maintain.

Declaration uses the term “power” enough to satisfy the “power to assess fees” prong of Anderson, but it is insufficient to satisfy the “duty” prong. Repeated emphasis, and use of “shall” does not compensate for the lack of an expressed duty (Culpeper Cir. Ct).

7/13/16
Conde v. Shepherd Court found Saddle Ridge Farms HOA may be a valid corp., but it is limited in its power to perform all the functions for which it was created.  Ass’n has no powers under Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act (Fauquier Cir. Ct.) 11/6/15
Nicksolat v. Gharavi, et al. Failure to get consent from the trustees on the deed of trust to the condo unit (encumbering the Unit and rights to use the parking space) is makes purported transfer of a the parking space a nullity (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 9/16/13
Cook v. Ebb Tide Shores Condominium Assoc., Inc., et al. Board allowed unit owners to erect a fence on common elements.  Cooks allege permitting the fences required amendment to the condominium instruments.  Association filed motion to dismiss, alleging Cooks failed to join all necessary parties (association alleged all mortgagees and unit owners are necessary parties).  Association motion to dismiss denied –  obtaining an injunction would not impact any of the other residents of the condominium as no others alleged to have put up any fences. (Norfolk Cir. Ct.)  5/10/13
The Townes at Grand Oaks Townhouse Ass’n, Inc. v. Baxter Condominium unit owners association sought to recover expenses for removal of a tree that fell from common area onto the Defendant’s condominium unit.  Court found for Baxter – removal of tree from lot is not repair or replacement; exemption from liability applies when the homeowner has “fire and extended coverage insurance” with applicable coverage; tree removal would necessarily involve removal of a portion of the tree from the common area as well. (Richmond Cir. Ct.) 5/9/13
McCarthy v. Fennessey and Ocean Breeze Condominium Assoc., Inc. Unit owner filed suit against association and association president related to personal injury caused by the association president’s dogs alleging association president allowed unleashed dogs out, and that association president was negligent in allowing dogs to run free and strictly liable for consequences of the negligence.  Unit Owner claimed association had duty to protect from  foreseeable negligence of third parties and that association responsible for Fennessey’s negligence because Fennessey is association agent as president. Unit owner also alleged that association had exclusive control over common elements and had duty to exercise ordinary care in providing a safe premises or warn of known hazards.  Pleadings sufficient to support unit owner claims that president was the association agent and association might be liable for her actions and that association was on notice that dogs were dangerous and bound by its own rules to prevent president from allowing the dogs to run free. (Norfolk Cir. Ct.) 10/2/13
Kuehn v. Carlyle Towers Condominium Unit Owners Assoc. Damage to unit was caused by water leaking from the shower in Unit.  Court held the claim falls within the limitation of liability provided in the Bylaws.  Liability of the association, through the Bylaws, was specifically limited and the association cannot be liable.  Similar limitation on an association’s liability was upheld in Nido v. Ocean Owners’ Council, 237 Va. 664 (1989) and Samuels v. Treebrooke Condominium Association, 41 Va. Cir. 109 (1996).  (Alexandria Cir. Ct.) 4/8/11
Godwin v. Bd. of Dir. of Bay Point Ass’n Godwin argues improperly approved, recorded amendment void.  Nothing in the Condominium Act suggests that only valid bylaw amendments are subject to the one-year statute of limitations.  Statute allows one year to challenge the validity of any amendment; not just valid ones.  Breach of fiduciary duty claims also barred by the expiration statute of limitations (two years). (Norfolk Cir. Ct.) 2/8/11
Romito v. The Bexley Assoc. Declaration of restrictive covenants recorded and was alleged to encumber Romito property, enforceable by a property owners association and designating property as common area.  Declaration recorded after Romito took title to property.  Association contended the Romito property was subject to the declaration.  Romito did not agree to be bound by any restrictive covenant and had no notice (actual or constructive) of covenants at purchase.  Declaration did not apply to the Romito property. (Colonial Heights Cir. Ct.) 9/15/10
Hornstein v. Federal Hill HOA Lot owner’s suit against association alleging slander of title and tortious interference with contract arising from statements in the association disclosure packet questioning placement of a fence.  Court ruled plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to support her claims for slander of title and tortious interference; plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Va. Code § 55-515(A); and her requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were rendered moot by representations of defendant’s counsel made in open court. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.) 1/14/10
The Sussex Condominium Unit Owners Assoc. v. Agnew, et al. Association claimed ownership of real estate resulting from adverse possession after a wall was built by the association on an adjacent parcel in 1978.  The association motion for summary judgment was granted – association owned property by adverse possession.  (Richmond Cir. Ct.) 10/21/09
Brambleton Cmty. Ass’n v. Than, et al. Than filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief on May 17, 2007 and continued to hold record title to lot within ass’n until foreclosed on May 7, 2008.  Assessments accrued between bankruptcy and discharge.  Than asserted post-petition assessments should be dischargeable in bankruptcy; association disagreed.  Because Than had record title of  lot until date of foreclosure, he had cognizable legal interest in lot until that date and was responsible for assessments that accrued between date he filed for bankruptcy relief and date of foreclosure. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.) 10/14/09
Bellevue Landowner’s Council, Inc. v. Charles G. Marterella, et ux Motion to set aside a verdict and judgment granted in favor of the Complainants on the Defendants’ plea in equity.  This case was initiated by a Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed by the Bellevue Landowner’s Council, Inc.  versus Charles G. and Lori K. Marterella  The Marterellas are property owners in the Bellevue subdivision and operate a small winery on their lot. 9/25/09
Zinone v. Lee’s Crossing Association Plea in Bar overruled. No evidence of recordation of certificate triggering the effective date of
the amendments from which the period of limitations is measured.A plea in bar is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge what are multifaceted claims for relief and not subject to being reduced to a singular issue of fact. A consideration of more than a single fact is necessary to determine the
kaleidoscopic pleading that is before the Court.
8/24/09
Asterita v. Ghent Development Partners, et al. Claims were barred by res judicata since the current suit arose from the same occurrence as a prior suit, with a unit owner claiming a different right to a remedy and a different remedy.  Violations of the Condominium Act and breach of warranty claims could have been brought in the prior suit, and each breach of warranty was listed in the first suit. 1/6/09
Al-Roubaihy v. Council of Co-Owners of Colchester Towne
Condominium-Section One, et al.
Whether Defendant Condominium’s Demurrer should be sustained. Defendant’s Demurrer is sustained to Counts I (Violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act), II (Violation of Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-216 – Untrue, Deceptive or Misleading Advertising, Inducements, Writing or Document)  and III (Constructive Fraud) without leave to amend.  The Demurrer is sustained as to Count IV (Alternative Petition to Void Sale Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. §55-79 .84(1)( 4)) with leave to amend. 10/9/02
Stone Ridge Condominium UOA v. J.M. Turner & Co. Condominium association filed action against Turner under theory of implied indemnity.  Demurrer by defendant granted. 7/14/03
Davis, et al., v. Wyckland Homes Ass ‘n. Inc ., et al. Whether the Board can levy a
special road assessment against “Non-Affected Lots.” The Court concludes that Section 55-514(A) of the Property Owners’ Association Actdoes not give the Board the authority to make special assessments applicable to all lots in Wyckland for the costs of road maintenance and improvements in light of Article 18 of the declaration.  The authority to enact special assessments under Section 55-514(A) of the Property Owners’ Association Act is not unlimited. An assessment under Section 55-514(A) of the Property Owners’ Association Act must be “[i}n addition to “all other assessments which are authorized in the declaration’.’ (Fairfax Cir. Ct.)
4/8/03
Hunt v Section 1, Oyster Bay Community Association The issue is whether the Complainants have satisfied all the elements for acquiring title by adverse possession under the law. Complainants and their immediate predecessors in title, the Steyns, were mistaken as to the existence of neighboring property and as to the location of Complainants’ actual boundary line delineating that neighboring property. The effect of that mistake was that both the Steyns and the Hunts adversely possessed the buffer strip adjacent to Lot 1 with the requisite claim of right. (Accomack Cty. Cir. Ct.). 1/28/03
Perel, et al. v Brannan, et al. Plaintiff complained that defendants breached covenants and sought declaration of violation, correction of covenants (in River Locke) and attorneys’ fees.  The defendants purchased Lot 1 in River Locke and constructed a house on it . This dispute involves their removal of some trees and other vegetation and construction and excavation within the setback lines and buffer area.  Court held (mostly) for plaintiff, but no attorneys’ fees awarded. (Richmond Cir. Ct.). 3/7/03
Monti v. Board of Trustees of Woodlea Manor Conservancy Whether the Plaintiffs exhausted their
administrative remedies prior to filing suit (the parties agreed that the Plaintiffs are
required to do so).
12/12/02
Hof Service Co. v. River Place North Housing Corporation Whether a provision regarding a right of first refusal in a laundry lease agreement is complete and unambiguous, or whether it is incomplete and ambiguous, and thus, extrinsic evidence is allowed to explain the provision.  The Court finds that the agreement does not give Hof the right of first refusal. (Arlington Cir. Ct.). 10/7/02
Mineral Springs Plantation Homeowners Association
v. Robert G. Hanus, et al.
Three issues considered by Court: (1) Who are the members of the Mineral Springs Plantation Homeowners Association?
(2) Who is entitled to vote on Association matters? (3) Who is obligated to pay
assessments? The court found that all lot owners are members of the Association, are entitled to vote, and are obligated to pay
assessments. (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct.).
12/5/00
Brun v. Tivoli at Cardinal Forest Condominium Unit Owners Ass’n Suit filed against association and board related to diminution in value caused by noise from the neighbor above.  The Court dismissed the suit against the Board. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 3/24/00
Cavalcade Homeowners Association v. John E. Beacom Issue is whether parking or vehicle restrictions related to publicly dedicated streets after the Deed of Dedication was recorded are valid and enforceable. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 12/7/98
Laura Martlock v. Williamsburg Plantation, Inc. Demurrer in suit claiming that defendant, a timeshare association, had a duty to make the area safe by providing adequate lighting and/or placing handrails or warnings at steps in timeshare pool area.  Demurrer overruled. (Richmond Cir. Ct.). 12/2/98
Crosspointe Swim and Racquet, Inc. v. Smorodin Association filed suit to enjoin continuous placement of basketball hoop in front yard.  Court found in favor of Association. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 11/24/98
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Alexandria Knolls West Consent Order entered related to alleged discriminatory housing practices under Virginia Fair Housing laws. 6/12/98
Presidential Lakes Property Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Presidential Lakes Development Co, Inc., et al. Attempt to reform a subdivision deed of dedication based upon mutual mistake of fact, with the primary issues : (1) are trustees and mortgagees necessary parties lo the cause; (2) does the proposed reformation deprive any lot owners of properly rights, and (3) has mutual mistake been established by the requisite evidentiary standard. (King George County Cir. Ct.). 6/12/98
Board of Directors of Tuckahoe Association, Inc. v. City of Richmond Association claims that the City of Richmond’s utility taxation scheme is illegal or invalid pursuant to Va. Code§ 58.1- 3984(A}, thereby entitling it to monetary relief. Court held Association provided clear and convincing evidence that subjecting commercial purchasers to a greater utility tax burden than residential consumers is arbitrary and unreasonable. 9/18/97
Ross, et al. v. Laurel Glen Homeowners Association, Inc. Whether the Association has the authority to undertake certain proposed modifications to
southern section of Laurel Glen Road within the scope of a multi-purpose easement created in the Deed of Dedication of the Laurel Glen subdivision. The Court ruled the Association does not have the authority to undertake the proposed modifications and granted Plaintiffs’ petition for  injunction.
8/4/97
Cornwell v. Main Street Village Homeowners Association, Inc. Declaratory judgment proceeding concerning the Parking Policy of Main Street Village.  The Parking Policy was declared invalid and unenforceable because it denies the Complainant the right to use the Common Area for parking on the same uniform basis as the other lot owners, and because it violates the forty-eight (48) hour notice before towing requirement. The Association was enjoined from enforcing the Parking Policy as adopted, and it is required to remove the markings placed on the parking spaces in the Common Area pursuant to the policy. 1/16/97
Bates v. Lake Holiday Country Club, Inc. Complaint related to access to books and records seeking (i) the General Journal, (ii) the General Ledger, (iii) the Cash Receipts Ledger, (iv) the Cash Disbursements Ledger, (v) the file of paid invoices, {vi) other files or documents to verify entries in the ledgers and journals, (vii} Property Owners’ assessment record, (viii) List of LHCC Property owners, (ix) Names and job descriptions of LHCC employees, (x) Wages and salaries of LHCC employees, (xi} Minutes of the Board of Directors’ meetings, (xii) Insurance policies, and (xiii) the current budget and financial statement.  Court held all thirteen categories of the records requested by the Complainants are within the purview of Section 55-510 of the Property Owners’ Association Act and must be made available for inspection. 3/28/96
Cobble v. Colecroft Station Unit Owners Association, et al. Cobble sought an order directing the Association to recount ballots cast at the annual meeting.   Court held that it is authorized to require recount.  (Alexandria Cir. Ct.). 1/29/96
Indian Acres Club of Thornburg, Inc. v. The Estate of Glover, et al. In a declaratory judgment action, the court is asked to determine the validity of a lease assignment.  Becuase the Association President flagrantly disregarded specific board instructions when he executed the lease addendum removing the nonassignability clause, and Crowe knew he had no authority to do that, the lease addendum is ultra vires and void. Because the
addendum is void, the attempt to assign the lease to Crowe in contravention of the terms of the original lease is ineffectual.  Lease assignment is invalid and Crowe must vacate the presmises without delay.
1/25/96
Rolling Valley Professional Center Unit Owners Association v. Wilson Association enacted regulation restricting the displaying of advertising material
on the premises. The Court held that Wilson was not ‘”grandfathered” as to those regulations and that Wilson’s State Farm Insurance sign violates the 1986 regulations.  The Court also held that Wilson’s rug outside of his unit does not violate those regulations.
11/27/95
Prosperity Heights HOA v. George Challenge to Association authority to assess for trash pickup.  The Association may levy assessments in two instances: 1) to promote the recreation, health, safety, end welfare of the residents in the Properties and 2) to improve and maintain the Common Area. The Court held the collection of trash has traditionally been an activity necessary for health. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 8/1/95
Council of Co-Owners of Place One Condominium v. Klopfenstein Action for declaratory judgment seeking an order requiring all owners of Place One Condominium to pay for balcony repairs. The defendant is an owner of a unit which does not have a balcony, which is the case of about one-third of the units. Balconies are part of the units to which they are attached. The cost of restoring and repairing the balcony slabs
is properly assessable against the individual balcony owners and not against all unit owners. (Alexandria Cir. Ct.).
7/13/95
Board of Directors of the Unit Owners Association of BuildAmerica Three, a Condominium v. Ivey Involves challenge to the validity and enforcement of a condominiun declaration
and its subsequent amendments and enforcement of restrictions against vehicle repair, maintenance and storage. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.).
7/12/95
In re Maplefield Homeowners Association Whether Section 55-515 of the Property Owners Association Act could be applied retroactively to award attorneys’ fees. Because  declaration recorded prior to July 1, 1989, and is silent as to attorney’s fees, the provisions of the Act become effective.  Attorney’s fee provision of the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act is
procedural in nature, and thus may be applied retroactively to respondents.
12/16/94
Fried, et al. v. Dunkerton Court awarded prevailing defendant attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 55-515 of the Property Owners’ Association Act. (Augusta County Cir. Ct.). 6/30/94
Wintergreen Property Owners Association v. Norton Association filed sought injunctive relief requiring the Norton to remove signs, lights,
statuary, and decorations from the property that the Norton  owns on the Wintergreen resort premises. Association asserted that
these objects violate the terms of the restrictive covenants. Covenants in this case do not have to specifically address the items that the Plaintiff believes are objectionable. (Nelson County Cir. Ct.).
6/20/94
Fried v. Dunkerton (Wintergreen) Action for injunction to move garage away from street.  Court found that ARB chair authorized the construction of the garage and allowed the garage to remain.  Injunction denied. (Augusta County Cir. Ct.). 4/7/94
Greenwood Estates Lot Owners Association, Inc. v. King Association could not impose certain assessments because provisions of articles of incorporation and bylaws were  inconsistent
with the provisions of the deed of dedication of the subdivision. (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct).
3/31/94
Arthur v. Surrey at Manchester Whether rule requiring window coverings on all unit windows and requiring the surface of such window coverings that is visible from the street be white or off-white in color is valid and enforceable.  The Court declared that the rule regulating the color of window treatments within a unit at Surrey at Manchester Lakes is invalid and directed the Board to abate any fines imposed against the unit, and to cease and desist from any further enforcement of the rule. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 12/6/93
Olson v. Rotonda Condominium Unit Owners Association, Inc. Whether or not the board of directors of the association, a non-stock corporation, has the authority pursuant to the Virginia Condominium Act, or otherwise, to promulgate rules:  (1) Authorizing the disposition of audio tapes of board
meetings created by an employee of the corporation for the purpose of preparing minutes of those meetings; (2) Prohibiting the videotaping of board meetings.  The Court found in favor of the Association on both issues. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.).
10/26/93
Goodwin v. Hunter’s Lodge Civic Association Two property owners filed suit to enjoin the property owners’ association from pursuing various contemplated actions, including borrowing money to improve the roads in the subdivision, securing that loan with a mortgage on the common areas, and levying special assessments, arguing that amendments to the governing documents authorizing the actions are invalid.  The Court upheld the amendment, which authorized Association Action.  (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct.). 8/11/93
Plate v. Board of Directors, Kidcannon Place Condominium Unit Owners Association Declaratory Judgment action to establish scope of condominium association’s authority to regulate parking on common elements with request for temporary injunction to enjoin the association from towing vehicles parked by owner on common elements. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 4/5/93
W. Forbes Ramsey v. Unit Owners Association of Regency at McLean Series of claims related to operation and assessment of “Club Unit.”  Court found an agreement altering the assessment obligation for swimming pool maintenance void; that the association may assess electricity costs under Section 55-79.83 B against the Club Unit.  Court awarded damages to Club Unit. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 2/5/93
Unit Owners Association of Stafford Meadows Condominium v. Stafford Meadows, Inc. Demurrer on the ground that the plaintiff condominium association lacks standing to proceed against defendant developer declarants on various theories concerning an alleged failure by defendants to to reserve phase of the Condominium as open space which may be developed for recreational or community facility as provided in Public Offering Statement.  For claims arising post July 1, 1981, a unit owners’ association does have standing to take legal action against the declarant, even if those claims arose during a period of time when the declarant necessarily had reserved control pursuant to §55-79.74(a). (Stafford Cir. Ct.). 12/9/92
Unit Owners Association of Plaza Village Townhouses v. Younger First American seeks summary judgment that it holds the units free and clear of all liens, claims and charges of Plaza Village, arguing its May 4, 1990, deed of trust is an equitable mortgage or deed of trust superior to the subsequently docketed judgment lien, and that such deed of trust is superior to any claim of Plaza Village under the provisions of the Declaration and Amendment to Declaration.  The Court did not find that the May 4, 1990, deed of trust created an equitable lien superior to the rights of Plaza Village as a lien creditor and found that the condominium instruments do not provide a basis for a finding that the lien of First American’s deed of trust is superior to Plaza Village’s judgment lien.  (Loudoun Cir. Ct.). 10/13/92
Skeen v. Indian Acres of Thornburg, Inc. Whether the association is authorized to adopt rules and regulations establishing monetary charges for violations of the association rules and regulations.  The charges adopted by the association are invalid and cannot be enforced.
The Property Owners’  Association Act cannot be applied retrospectively to legitimize the charges. (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct.).
5/6/92
Newpointe Condominium Association, Inc. v. Majors Whether the special assessment in the sum of $100.00 had been properly levied against each unit in Newpointe Condominium and, more particularly, against the unit owned by Ms. Majors. Virginia Beach General District Court concluded special assessment properly levied. (Va. Beach Gen. Dist. Ct.). 3/17/92
In re Westchester Homes (Clifton Farm HOA) Whether a homeowners association is a necessary party in a mechanic’s lien suit solely because of the recordation of a declaration and creation of inchoate lien.  Court held Association not a necessary party. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 12/11/91
Armfield HOA v. Coscan Washington, Inc., et al.

Armfield HOA filed suit against the declarant , complaining of the design and construction of a community swimming pool. Armfield asserted the declarant was liable in negligence, for breach of express provisions of the covenants, for fraud, and under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The declarant demurred.

The court overruled the demurrer to two counts (negligence and breach of covenants) and sustained the demurrer to two counts (fraud and consumer protection).  (Fairfax Cir. Ct.).

12/2/91
Olde Greenwich Community Council, Inc. v. Saunders Whether a homeowners association loses the right to enforce a restriction because of repeated violations of the restrictive covenants (waiver, abandonment, acquiescence or estoppel).  The violations established by the evidence do not affect the subdivision scheme so as to render the enforcement of the subject covenant to no substantial value. (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct.). 9/12/91
Skyline House Unit Owners Association v. Hyatt & Rhoads Action for leqal malpractice against a law firm and two of its former members for failure to file suit within statute of limitations and naming incorrect party in defect litigation.  Court found in favor of association – defendants were proximate cause of damage suffered by association. (Fairfax Cir. Ct.). 8/14/91
Bd. of Dir. of Port Royal Condominium Unit Owners Association v. Crossland Bank Association seeks to impose liability on defendants for breach of contract and breach of statutory warranties contained Section 55-79.79(b) of the Condominium Act.  Court found against Crossland, but did not pierce the corporate veil to impose liability on Plank. (Alexandria Cir. Ct.). 6/5/91
Countryside Proprietary, Inc. v. King Court reviewed issue of whether the lack of objective guidelines defeat the ability of Countryside to act on an architectural application on a reasonable basis.”‘Generally, a restrictive covenant for.a residential subdivision which requires consent to construction or approval of plans of construction, even though the provisions of the restrictions do not establish standards of approval, will be declared valid when such covenants apply to all the lots as a part of a uniform plan of development. But such covenants will be enforced only when there has been a reasonable employment of such restrictions.'” quoting Friedberg vs. Building Committee, 218 Va 659, 668 (1977). (Loudoun Cir. Ct.) 5/23/91
Skyline House Unit Owners’ Association, Inc., et al. v. Eleventh Skyline Corporation 10/4/90
Bloom v. Southeastern Investment Corp. Jolly, Place, Fralin and Prillman  was a law firm employed as settlement agent in a number of related condominium sales. Plaintiffs were various purchusers of
the condominium units.The issue is whether Jolly, Place, Fralin and Prillman, as settlement attorney, owed a legal duty to the purchasers upon which they may maintain a cause of action for malpractice (failure to advise them of their right to obtain a public offering statement and their ten-day cancellation right)
1/18/90
Oppenhelm v. Prospect House Condominium Unit Owners Association Section 55-79.84(f) of the Virginia Condominium Act provides that the properly perfected Memorandum of
Condominium Lien of Prospect House retains its validity and continuing nature until such time as the underlying debt
secured thereby is paid or otherwise satisfied.  The validity and continuing nature of the perfected condominium lien of Prospect House is not dependent upon or related to the statute of limitations set forth in Section 55-79.84(d) of the Condominium Act relating to suits to enforce memorandum of condominium liens by way of foreclosure proceedings.
10/6/89

 

One lawyer's compilation of online legal resources and comments related to issues involving condominiums, HOAs, timeshares and cooperatives in Virginia and the District of Columbia.