Order in the Courtyard!

My parents live in a small neighborhood composed of five sets of three adjoining houses. Each trio of houses faces the road, and each house has a courtyard in the back. The courtyards are connected by gates that allow contractors, such as landscapers, and visitors to pass through from one end of the row to the other. The middle courtyard is blocked off from the street on both sides, and there is no alley or road touching the courtyards that would allow another mode of entry other than through the front of the house. Consequently, the neighborhood homeowners’ association (HOA) requires that all connecting gates remain unlocked.

Several months ago, a neighbor on one end of the row decided to lock her gate, barring her neighbor in the middle house from allowing landscapers to pass through and complete a courtyard renovation project. As a result, the middle neighbor had to let contractors in and out of his front door for weeks, resulting in inconvenience and annoyance. The end neighbor informed the HOA that keeping her gate unlocked was a pointless rule that she did not want to be bound by, explaining that she did not appreciate people she did not know passing through her property. The middle neighbor also informed the HOA about the issue, asking that they enforce the unlocked gate rule.

The rule of reasonableness for HOA rulemaking authority discussed in Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman provides helpful insight into the question of whether the unlocked gate rule will be enforced. In Norman, a condominium association banned the consumption of alcohol in a neighborhood clubhouse, despite there being no evidence of disrupting incidents occurring during prior social events where alcohol was consumed. The homeowners, who were dissatisfied with the rule, sued to permanently enjoin its enforcement. The court held that “the test is reasonableness. If a rule is reasonable the association can adopt it; if not, it cannot.” The court explained that “the association is not at liberty to adopt arbitrary or capricious rules bearing no relationship to the health, happiness, and enjoyment of life of the various unit owners.” By choosing to live in a place with an HOA, “each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in a separate, privately owned property.” According to the court, restrictions on alcohol consumption are also widespread among the government and the private sector. Finding the alcohol consumption rule reasonable, the court ruled in favor of the HOA.

The requirement that HOA rules be reasonable provides a path to resolve my parents’ neighbors’ dispute. A rule created by an HOA can be adopted if it is reasonable, and a reasonable rule cannot be arbitrary or unrelated to the health, happiness, and enjoyment of life of the various homeowners. The end neighbor’s best argument would be that having people pass through her backyard at any moment makes her feel unsafe, thus interfering with her health and enjoyment of life. The middle neighbor’s best argument is that the rule is reasonable and not arbitrary because it has a clear purpose of ensuring that contractors can enter the middle courtyard without having to enter a house. It is related to the middle neighbor’s enjoyment of life because the locked gate has inconvenienced the middle neighbor, resulting in contractors having to carry landscaping equipment and various tools through the middle neighbor’s house. Using the Norman context-dependent inquiry, the middle neighbor could argue that the end neighbor should have taken the rule into consideration before choosing to purchase a house in the neighborhood, as she most likely had notice of the rule. This is a stronger argument that would likely lead to the rule being deemed reasonable.

In theory, the rule of reasonableness is a useful tool that allows courts to distinguish between helpful rules and ones that have no purpose and are likely to harm homeowners. However, it may be difficult for a court to reach a conclusion about what makes a reasonable HOA rule without resorting to value judgments, where a judge is swayed by personal knowledge or bias in their decision. In a case like Norman, what if a judge’s personal negative experience with a rowdy, intoxicated neighbor impacts their decision? In the present case, what if prior run-in with a particularly nitpicky HOA leads a judge to rule a certain way? While a more objective standard based on a broader set of criteria may help reduce value judgments, it may also limit the individualized attention and fact-specific consideration that a court gives each unique, context-dependent case. On the other hand, retaining a reasonableness standard may immensely increase litigation and overburden courts. A lawyer promoting an interest in judicial economy could certain use that premise to their advantage in court.

Rebecca Lumelsky is a law student at the American University Washington College of Law.

Image: Philip Mallis, Townhouses on Maud Street, North Balwyn.