Interesting NC Supreme Court Case
If you saw the February 15th Chapel Hill News, you might have noticed an interesting case that has made its way to the NC Supreme Court dealing with a homeowners association's covenants.
The facts are simple. A Winding Ridge subdivision resident named Zalman Joffe leased his home to some students who happened to be members of the UNC-CH baseball team. The Winding Ridge Homeowners Association filed a suit against Joffe, his wife and the baseball players, alleging they violated the association's restrictive covenant that limits the use of the property to a single-family residence.
The facts may be simple but what isn't is what does "single-family" mean, the structure or who's inside? As reported in the story, "The case went through Orange County Superior Court, where Judge Carl Fox ruled the baseball team could not be considered a family. It then went to the N.C. Court of Appeals, where the judges split, but with the majority of them supporting Fox's ruling."
Nick Herman, the attorney for the resident argued the case saying:
"The restrictive covenant is solely a restriction on the types of structures that may exist on the lot," Herman said. "It is not a restriction on the types of persons who may live in those constructions."
Herman pointed out that in the homeowners covenant, it states that no apartments or duplexes are allowed to be built on a lot. The covenant, however, does allow for a "light housekeeping" apartment to exist in a house that would be used for one or two people, presumably for domestic help or for a caregiver.
A single-family structure would be a house with a single front doorway that is not divided into apartments inside of it, as opposed to apartments or duplexes, Herman said. People living in it would share the living space.
The attorney for the association argued the opposite:
Gordon Brown, representing the homeowners association, said that taken as a whole and referring to captions on certain sections, it's clear that when the words single-family structure were used, it meant that the structure was supposed to be for the use of a single family.
"It's not just the words themselves, but the entirety of the document," he said.
Brown explained that domestic partners, unmarried but committed couples and their children, could live in the house as a single-family unit, but five unrelated students living in a house, even though they share the kitchen, living room, and bathrooms, would not be a single- family unit.
That type of situation would be more like a boarding house, Brown said.
But Herman argued that the language wasn't clear, and if there is ambiguity in the wording, the justices should rule in favor of the freest use of the property.
He also said, "restrictive covenants need to be written clearly so that people making investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars will know in advance how they can use their property."
There is no timetable for a decision, but guess what? The North Haven at Ironwoods Homeowners' Association's covenants say the same thing. In Article VI, Section 4, it reads "No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached, single family dwelling ..."
This is not surprising as most of the developers used the same template for their covenants. Developer Mark Daley specifically patterned ours on The Oaks. Since day 1, we have also had leased homes, but in every case, they were occupied by a single family in the traditional sense. I'm not sure what "traditional family" means these days, but I suspect that knowing the answer might become important, and this court case might influence it.
When the decision on this comes, there is no guarantee that the case will be resolved and not move forward in federal court. Whatever happens, our Association, like all others will be affected.
So, what do you think, is "single-family" a description of a dwelling or the description of the occupants? What do you think the NC Supreme Court will rule? How will you feel about it, whichever way they rule?
