Homeowner association & Real Estate Law

The case of Dash v. Taylor involved a dispute between a homeowners association (HOA) and a homeowner over a trash can enclosure. The court found that the HOA's failure to enforce restrictions against other similar structures in the subdivision constituted a waiver of their right to enforce against this homeowner. This decision underscores the necessity for HOAs to consistently enforce restrictions to avoid waiving their enforcement rights in the future.

The court's decision in Haines v. Branson Cabin Rentals, LLC, focused on the classification of certain provisions in the condominium declaration. The court held that the provisions granting the management company the exclusive right to operate and regulate short-term rentals were in the nature of a use and restriction, rather than a development right as defined by the Uniform Condominium Act (UCA) or the condominium declaration itself. This classification meant that the management program provisions did not need to conform to the UCA's time requirements for development rights. The court found that not every right reserved in the declaration is a development right, and the appellants' interpretation, which would classify any reservation of rights as a development right, was inconsistent with the declaration as a whole and the concept of development rights in the UCA. Therefore, the management program is a valid use restriction

In the case of Golf Club of Wentzville Community Homeowners Association v. Real Homes Inc., the Homeowners Association (HOA) 616 S.W.3d 339 (2020) a lawsuit against property owners that were renting their houses,  alleging that renting their properties within the subdivision violated a restrictive covenant in the 2000 Declaration, which prohibited the use of properties for commercial or business purposes. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the HOA, issuing a permanent injunction against the property owners from renting their homes. However, upon appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the properties were used for residential purposes, not commercial or business purposes, as they were rented as single-family residences. The court found that the 2000 Declaration did not explicitly prohibit renting and that the terms "residential purposes" were not ambiguous under Missouri law.