Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA couple who constructed a pole barn on their property without first getting approval from their homeowners association failed to convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that the trial court erred in granting the HOA summary judgment.
In 2019, Randy and Delaine Warriner erected a pole barn on their residential property in Martinsville without the required approval from their neighborhood homeowners association.
After construction of the 2,400-square-foot structure began, however, the couple submitted a request to build the pole barn to the HOA. Soon after, the majority of property owners opposed the request and the Warriners were notified their request was denied.
Two weeks later, the Warriners submitted a revised request offering to install a stone front to the barn to help it blend with the surroundings. That request was also denied by the property owners.
Despite the denials, the Warriners continued construction and threatened the HOA with legal action.
The HOA twice notified the Warriners the construction was a violation of the HOA’s covenants and bylaws and proceeded to obtain legal counsel.
Following multiple counterclaims and cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the Morgan Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the HOA on all claims.
The trial court subsequently held a damages hearing on all issues and entered an order awarding the association attorney fees of $25,205, but denied the association’s request for injunctive relief to tear down the pole barn.
On appeal, the Warriners challenged the trial court’s award of attorney fees as well as the entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the HOA regarding their counterclaim for damages alleging an invalid lien against the property. The HOA cross-appealed the denial for injunctive relief.
Before the COA, judges affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all respects.
First, on the attorney fees issue, the Court of Appeals determined the special assessment for attorney fees was valid.
“We find that the clear and unambiguous language of the Enforcement provision of the Restrictive Covenants, coupled with the clear and unambiguous language of the Special Assessments provision of the Bylaws, provided a valid basis for the HOA to levy a special assessment against the owners of the Warriner Property in this case,” Judge Terry Crone wrote. “While it just so happens that the nature of the assessment here was attorney fees, the nature of the assessment is not at issue.”
Second, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the HOA’s request for a mandatory permanent injunction requiring removal of the pole barn.
“… In balancing the equities, the trial court determined that the harm a grant of relief would occasion on the Warriner Parties outweighed the injury to the HOA in leaving the pole barn in place. Therefore, the trial court denied the HOA’s request for a mandatory permanent injunction,” Crone wrote. “We cannot say that this was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion under the circumstances presented.”
The case is Warriner Investments, LLC, Randy Warriner, and Delaine Warriner v. Dynasty Homeowners Association, Inc., 21A-PL-2405.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.