HOA Deed Restrictions: When is a View “Obstructed”?
Lakefront property is often highly desired, and individuals owning these properties often wish to keep their view of the lake undisturbed. In an effort to ensure property owners are able to enjoy their lake view, homeowners associations for lakefront communities often adopt deed restrictions that protect this view and keep it free from obstructions. However, disputes may arise when certain homeowners feel that their view has been obstructed, and these disputes are often challenging for condominium and homeowners associations to navigate. Although deed restrictions such as these are in place to preserve and maintain the appeal and aesthetic of the community for all homeowners, restrictions must be applied according to their general meaning and not based on the subjective perspective of individual homeowners.
In Chreston v Lake Huron Manor Ass’n, Inc, unpublished per curium opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 1, 2022 (Docket No. 356448), 2022 WL 4002184, the Michigan Court of Appeals considered whether the installation of a tree and swing set obstructed lot owners’ view of the lake and whether this violated the restrictive covenants in a lakefront subdivision. The trial court found that the homeowners association did not violate the applicable deed restrictions, nor did it obstruct the plaintiffs’ view of Lake Huron by installing a new swing set and planting a new tree along the shore. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, finding that there was no error by the trial court in denying the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief (a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from planting trees or installing other structures along the shore of Lake Huron) and their request for an order requiring the defendant to remove the new swing set and tree.
As discussed below, this case provides insight into how deed restrictions will be interpreted and applied by courts and the considerations homeowners associations should make before acting in any way that may be viewed as a violation of their own restrictions.
Background
The Lake Huron Manor Association administered the affairs of a subdivision in Fort Gratiot Township that was situated along the shore of Lake Huron. The Association also administered the subdivision’s common use areas, including a park along the shore of the lake. The subdivision was subject to a deed restriction that provided, in relevant part, that no building, structure, or anything, whether permanent or temporary, be erected, maintained, or placed within the park area that would obstruct the lot owners’ view of Lake Huron.
In 2019, the Association’s Board of Directors held a meeting where they discussed planting a new tree and replacing an old swing set in the park. One of the plaintiff homeowners objected to planting any new trees in the park, as the front of their home faced the park and had a view of Lake Huron. Despite the objection, the Association proceeded to plant a new tree and install the new swing set in the park.
The plaintiff homeowners subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Association, seeking a declaration from the court that the planting of the new tree and the installation of the new swing set in the park violated the deed restriction and obstructed their view of Lake Huron. At trial, there was testimony presented that prior to the installation of the new swing set, there had been two swing sets and a play structure in the park for decades. There was also testimony that the park had historically included trees for decades. The trial judge found in favor of the Association, finding that the plaintiff homeowners acquiesced to the presence of the old swings and the new swing set was not a more serious violation of the deed restriction, if a violation at all. The trial judge also found that since the new tree was a replacement tree planted in the same area as the former one, it could not be considered a violation in light of prior acquiescence to the presence of the tree in the park. The trial court ultimately held that the new swing set and new tree did not obstruct the plaintiff homeowners’ view of the lake. The plaintiff homeowners appealed.
Deed Restriction Terms Interpreted by Generally Understood Definition or Meaning
On appeal, the plaintiff homeowners contended that the trial court erred in finding that the new swing set did not obstruct their view of the lake because the deed restriction prohibited placing anything on the park property that obstructs the owners’ view of the lake. The plaintiff homeowners claimed that the new swing set and tree blocked their view of the lake, violating the deed restriction. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the plaintiff homeowners, holding that the deed restriction dealt with the right of all lot owners to enjoy an unobstructed view of the lake, and it could not reasonably be argued that the swing set or tree cut off or blocked anyone’s view of the lake. Specifically, the Court of Appeals determined that, based on the dictionary definition of the word “obstruct” and the plural phrasing of the deed restriction, there could be no blocking or cutting off of a view of the lake for all owners by a structure like the swing set or tree. The Court of Appeals found that the swing set and tree could not cut off the whole landscape of the lake for all owners within the subdivision. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that the language of the restriction indicated that the view to be protected was the objective, general view of the lake by all lot owners within the subdivision, without reference to a view from any particular position.
Deed Restrictions May be Waived by Acquiescence to Prior Violations
The plaintiff homeowners acknowledged that they had acquiesced to the previous placement of swing sets, play structures, and trees in the park, but alleged that the new swing set was a more serious and damaging violation of the deed restriction. Specifically, the plaintiff homeowners argued that because the swing set was larger than the previous ones, it was a more serious obstruction to their lake view. The Court of Appeals found that subsequent enforcement of the deed restriction for similar structures or objects was not permitted based on this prior acquiescence. The Court reasoned that because the new swing set was in the same general location as the previous swing set, it replaced two pieces of play equipment, and the frame of the new swing set left more empty space through which homeowners could view Lake Huron, it could not be deemed a more serious or damaging violation.
Court of Appeals Ruling: Tree and Swing Set Do Not Obstruct View
The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff homeowners had waived any claim that the installation of the new swing set and the planting of the new tree violated the deed restriction prohibition related to anything being placed in the park. The Court further held that it was evident from the language of the restriction and its general meaning that the view to be protected by the deed restriction was the objective, general view of the lake by all homeowners collectively, not the view from any particular home or position. The trial court did not err in coming to the same conclusions and ruling in favor of the Association.
Key Considerations for HOAs Related to Deed Restrictions
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Chreston v Lake Huron Manor Ass’n, Inc, unpublished per curium opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 1, 2022 (Docket No. 356448), 2022 WL 4002184 highlights the importance of the language used within community associations’ deed restrictions and restrictive covenants. The case also serves as an important reminder that although certain restrictions may be waived by prior acquiescence, this will not guarantee that deed restrictions will be unenforceable for more serious subsequent violations.
- Deed Restriction Terms will be Applied Using their Generally Understood Definition or Meaning. The language used within your community’s deed restrictions matters. If disputes arise, the terms will be interpreted using their general definition or meaning. Having an experienced community association attorney carefully review and draft deed restrictions is important to ensure the appropriate intention is present throughout your documents.
- Prior Acquiescence will not Waive More Serious Violations of Deed Restrictions. Although homeowners may waive enforcement of deed restrictions through their acquiescence to previous violations, this is not the case when subsequent violations are more serious and damaging. Just because homeowners have allowed a potential violation in the past, this does not give a homeowners association unfettered discretion to engage in conduct that could be a more serious violation of their restrictions.
Need Help Understanding Deed Restrictions?
If you need help understanding the deed restrictions within your Michigan condominium or homeowners association documents, and what they permit, contact Hirzel Law. Our experienced community association lawyers can assist you in interpreting and enforcing deed restrictions within your communities. Our firm is here to help!
Erika DiLoreto obtained her Bachelor of Arts degree with an honors specialization in Criminology with Distinction from the University of Western Ontario in 2019. She then went on to obtain her Master of Arts degree in Sociology from Carleton University in 2022. She continued her academic journey at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and the University of Windsor School of Law, where she pursued her Dual Juris Doctorate (J.D) degree and graduated Cum Laude in 2024. During her time in law school, Ms. DiLoreto was actively engaged in various roles and responsibilities. She volunteered with community-based clinics on both sides of the border, assisting individuals with various legal matters. Ms. DiLoreto also served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Matthew F. Leitman in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Following law school, Ms. DiLoreto completed her articles at Brown Beattie O’Donovan in London, Ontario, Canada, where she handled litigation matters involving construction, employment, and real estate disputes, as well as landlord and tenant matters. Following the completion of her articles, Ms. DiLoreto was called to the bar in Ontario and is now a dually licensed attorney in both the Province of Ontario and the State of Michigan. Ms. DiLoreto is dedicated to assisting individuals with legal matters and committed to working hard for her clients. She may be reached at (248) 478-1800 or ediloreto@hirzellaw.com
