{"id":1866,"date":"2023-05-26T17:19:19","date_gmt":"2023-05-26T21:19:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.tarleyrobinson.com\/?p=1866"},"modified":"2023-05-26T17:19:19","modified_gmt":"2023-05-26T21:19:19","slug":"hoa-case-study-boards-statements-conduct-establish-enforceability-governing-documents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.tarleyrobinson.com\/?p=1866","title":{"rendered":"HOA Case Study: A Board’s statements or conduct may establish the enforceability of its governing documents"},"content":{"rendered":"

An article in the Washington Post <\/em>discussed a pending case in the Virginia Supreme Court regarding a dispute between property owners and a community association<\/a>\u00a0regarding the owners’ operation of a vineyard and retail store on their property.\u00a0In an\u00a0unpublished Order<\/a>, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld a Fauquier County<\/a> jury verdict for the property owners that had been set aside by the trial court.<\/p>\n

Although unpublished orders do not have “precedential value or . . . significance for the law or legal system<\/a>,” this case does provide us with a look at how difficult it can be for community associations to interpret their governing documents<\/a>\u00a0and also how a board’s previous actions may have an effect upon future enforcement of the community’s declarations and covenants.\u00a0This blog post will review the facts of that case and its applicability to your HOA.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In Marterella v. Bellevue Landowners Council, Inc<\/em>., the Marterellas developed a vineyard and winery on their lot. Thereafter, the Marterellas\u00a0requested permission to open an on-site retail business on their property to sell the wine they produced. Despite the board’s denial of their request, the Marterellas began selling their wine on their property. The board filed suit to stop the retail business, claiming that the retail sale of wine violated the community’s declaration and covenants. The Marterellas counterclaimed, arguing that the Bellevue Landowners Council (“BLOC”) was estopped<\/a> from enforcing the restriction on retail sales.<\/p>\n

According to the facts set forth in the Supreme Court’s unpublished order, the Marterellas testified that<\/p>\n