[WSBARP] Case on enforcement of protective covenants

Mon Jul 2 15:32:08 PDT 2018

Bryce--Below is cribbed from WSBA Real Property Deskbook Vol. 1 Ch. 8.6:

When a "common plan" has broken down due to substantial unchecked prior violations of the restrictions, the covenants may be held terminated by abandonment. See, e.g., White v. Wilhelm, 34 Wn.App. 763, 769, 665 P.2d 407, review denied, 100 Wn.2d 1025 (1983); St. Luke's, 13 Wn.App. at 486. Unlike changed conditions, discussed in §8.6(1)(e) below, abandonment is a "voluntary, unilateral act on the part of the servitude beneficiary." RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY: Servitudes §7.4 (2000). It is typically based on circumstantial evidence, however, rather than on direct expressions of intent. Id. The issue frequently arises in the context of subdivisions.

In evaluating a claim of abandonment, courts undertake a similar factual evaluation as discussed previously in regard to the initial establishment of the "common plan." A few violations will not suffice to constitute an abandonment; the plan must have been "habitually and substantially violated" to create the impression it has been abandoned. Mt. Baker Park Club, Inc. v. Colcock, 45 Wn.2d 467, 471, 275 P.2d 733 (1954); Hagemann, 56 Wn.App. at 89. The prior violations must have effectuated a material change in the neighborhood or "have so eroded the general plan as to make enforcement useless and inequitable Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Tydings, 125 Wn.2d 337, 342, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994).

When the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions contains an unambiguous severability clause, violations of separate and independent covenants cannot be the basis of a claim of abandonment. Id. at 344.

Comment:          Washington courts frequently cite the above-quoted abandonment rules when addressing the argument that a covenant has been either waived or abandoned, without distinguishing between the two theories. See Reading v. Keller, 67 Wn.2d 86, 90, 406 P.2d 634 (1965); White v. Wilhelm, 34 Wn.App. at 773. Technically however, the theories are different. Waiver usually involves a beneficiary's failure to object to a particular covenant violation under circumstances that lead to the conclusion that the beneficiary is precluded from objecting to a different but similar violation. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROP.: SERVITUDES §7.1 (2000). Unlike abandonment, waiver is a defense to the enforcement of a covenant and therefore does not result in its extinguishment, but rather the denial of all remedies for enforcement. Id.

(2)  Equitable defenses

Equitable defenses against the enforcement of covenants include theories such as acquiescence, estoppel, relative hardship, unclean hands, laches, and various public policy arguments. Although Washington courts at least have recognized the existence of each of these theories, several of them are not well developed. For a more detailed discussion of the elements and availability of these defenses, see RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY: SERVITUDES §§7-8 (2000).

(a)  Acquiescence

The personal defense of acquiescence arises when a plaintiff that has previously failed to enforce a covenant seeks to enforce it against the defendant. Acquiescence is based upon the personal conduct of the plaintiff rather than that of others who have failed to enforce the restrictive scheme. Although technically it is a defense to enforcement only, acquiescence often arises in circumstances similar to abandonment and changed conditions, and often it is difficult to determine which theory the court is applying. See §8.6(1)(d)-(e).

In both Ronberg, 132 Wash. 345, 349-353, and Tindolph v. Schoenfeld Bros., 157 Wash. 605, 610-611, 289 P. 530 (1930), the courts mentioned several theories but seemed to emphasize acquiescence. In each decision, the court, quoting Ocean City Ass'n v. Chalfant, 65 N.J. Eq. 156-157, 55 A. 801 (1903), explained the doctrine of acquiescence as resting upon "the equitable ground that if anyone who has a right to enforce the covenant...shall acquiesce in material alterations of [the covenant's conditions], he cannot thereafter ask a court of equity to assist him in preserving them." Tindolph, 157 Wash. at 611 (citation omitted); Ronberg, 132 Wash. at 353 (citations omitted).

Although it has been held that acquiescence in a few minor violations will not bar equitable relief, it is not entirely clear whether acquiescence requires the same degree of breakdown of the "common plan" that abandonment does. On the one hand, cases applying the doctrine speak of "material" violations that "abrogate the purpose of the restriction and alter the general scheme." Burke v. Kleiman, 277 I11. App. 519, 533, No. 37522, 1934 WL 538 (Nov. 27, 1934). On the one hand, Washington cases applying the doctrine speak of "material" violations that "abrogate the purpose of the restriction and alter the general scheme." Along those lines, one Washington court has held that a plaintiff's acquiescence to violations of a covenant that took place far from the plaintiff's property did not prevent enforcement of the covenant. See Reading, 67 Wn.2d 86. On the other hand, courts have relied upon 2 James L. High, HIGH ON INJUNCTIONS §1159 (4th ed. 1905), for the proposition that courts require "due diligence" by the plaintiff, and even a "slight degree of acquiescence" will defeat the application of injunctive relief. See, e.g., Ronberg v. Smith, 132 Wash. 345, 353-54, 232 P. 283 (1925).

(b)  Estoppel

The estoppel defense has been recognized in conjunction with other theories such as laches or acquiescence. St. Luke's, 13 Wn.App. 483; Granger v. Boulls, 21 Wn.2d 597, 152 P.2d 325 (1944). Generally, estoppel occurs when the person claiming the benefit of the covenant has acted so as to indicate that there is no restriction or that he or she does not intend to enforce it, and the owner of the burdened land acts in reliance upon this conduct to his or her detriment. In such case, equity estops the former person from enforcing his or her rights. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROP.: SERVITUDES §§7.6, 8.3 (2000). Although generally characterized as an equitable defense, the Restatement opines that, under certain circumstances, estoppel can operate to terminate a covenant. Id. at §7.6. Estoppel terminates a covenant if the person that claims the benefit of the covenant has misled another into believing that his enforcement will not be sought under any circumstances, rather than that enforcement will not be sought under particular circumstances only. Id. at §7.6. Estoppel is a factual question. Sandy Point Improvement Co., 26 Wn.App. at 319.

In Fawn Lake Maintenance Commission, the Aberses argued that after they combined their two lots into one lot, the Maintenance Commission was estopped from collecting dues on the second lot because of an alleged conversation with the board president. 149 Wn.App. at 32. The court rejected the Aberses' argument because the Aberses knew that the dues covenant applied to each lot as originally configured, and because the Aberses did not establish that the board president had actual or apparent authority to speak on behalf of the Maintenance Commission. Id.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 2:16 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com)
Subject: [WSBARP] Case on enforcement of protective covenants

I'd appreciate greatly if someone could send me the case cites on the decisions that deal with non-enforceability of certain  covenants by HOA because of failure to enforce those same  covenants in the past.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D1AB8F.1C8227E0]

Bryce H. Dille | Attorney at Law

P: 253.848.3513| F: 253.845.4941
317 South Meridian
Puyallup, WA 98371
bryced at cdb-law.com<mailto:bryced at cdb-law.com>
www.cdb-law.com<http://www.cdb-law.com/>

This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s).  If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.

Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development
Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator
Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration
Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments
Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180702/85519bc0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4039 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180702/85519bc0/image001.jpg>