holding a “Design Guideline” was not a part of the covenant because it was “specifically define[d] the Design Guidelines as a document established separately by the Property Owners Association”
How later courts described this case
- holding a “Design Guideline” was not a part of the covenant because it was “specifically define[d] the Design Guidelines as a document established separately by the Property Owners Association”
- rejecting the argument that a planned community’s design guidelines were part of the planned community’s declaration of binding covenants in part because the design guidelines were set out in a separate document
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KETCHUM, J.,
concurring:
I agree with our decision which is based on the single issue argued in this case, i.e., whether the covenants and design guidelines adopted and published by the developer allowed the developer to later unilaterally reduce the size of the residences to be built in the subdivision.
I am writing to point out that our decision does not extinguish causes of actions by a purchaser to enforce sales brochures or similar materials. The law has long recognized that purchasers will ordinarily rely on sales and promotional materials rather than attempt to interpret the legalese in complicated development covenants and design guidelines. Promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and other causes of action based on sales brochures and similar material are still viable.