Court Orders Homeowner to Reconstruct Driveway that was not Approved by Association’s Architectural Review Committee

Delaware Court of Chancery decision (April 21, 2017).

This case involved a dispute between a homeowners association (“Association”) and the owner of a home situated within the common interest community governed by Association (“Owner”), over the material used by Owner in the construction of the driveway of Owner’s residence. The underlying action was commenced by Association in an effort to compel Owner to remove a “crushed oyster shell” driveway that was installed during the construction of Owner’s home in disregard of Association’s approval of plans that called for an “asphalt” driveway.

The governing documents for Association include provisions that prohibit the construction of any improvements on any land within the community without the prior written approval of Association’s Architectural Review Committee. Association’s Architectural Review Application was a five page document that requires an applicant to provide detailed information regarding the intended project including, “the proposed builder, architect, building dimensions, setbacks, square footage, siding, foundation, windows, doors, shutters, roof, patios, decks, front steps, walkways, driveway, landscaping and tree plan, fences and walls.” The application also required an applicant to describe the materials and colors of any proposed driveway that was not to be constructed of concrete, asphalt, or brick, and to submit samples or pictures of the desired material for the Architectural Review Committee to review.

In his application to Association’s Architectural Review Committee, Owner listed “asphalt” as the material to be used in the construction of his driveway. Following Association’s approval of Owner’s project, which was to include the asphalt driveway, Owner proceeded to construct the house and, without the knowledge or consent of Association, Owner substituted the crushed oyster shell driveway for the asphalt driveway that had been approved. Owner subsequently requested a variance from the Association to permit Owner to retain the oyster shell driveway, but it was denied by Association. After Owner refused to replace the oyster shell driveway with a driveway constructed of the approved materials, Association proceeded with its lawsuit against Owner to compel compliance with Association’s architectural standards.

The court ruled in favor of Association and directed Owner to comply with Association’s governing documents stating that as long as Association’s restrictive covenants serve a legitimate purpose and provide sufficient notice as to what constitutes appropriate conduct by a homeowner, they will be upheld. The court further stated that restrictive covenants that are vague and do not provide “clear, precise, and fixed standards of application,” may be deemed unenforceable because they are subject to arbitrary or capricious decision-making. The court found that, when Owner submitted his application to Association’s Architectural Review Committee, he knew what was required by the restrictive covenants, including the requirement that driveways be constructed of concrete, asphalt or brick—and his application indicated that the driveway would be constructed of asphalt. Because Owner’s oyster shell driveway did not conform, the court found Owner to be in violation of Association’s restrictive covenant and ordered Owner to remove the oyster shell driveway and install a new driveway that is constructed with the approved materials. The court also awarded Association its reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees.

See case decision: Canal_Corkran_Homeowners_Ass’n_Inc._v._Petrone_(Del._Ch._2017)1[4]