Disputes Between Neighbors and Delaware Law
As a Delaware litigation lawyer, I am sometimes consulted by clients who are being sued by their neighbors. While the facts are always different, the dispute usually centers around 1 neighbor who is upset over how he or his property is being affected by what another neighbor is doing. This is the first in a series of articles that addresses the balancing test the courts apply in deciding whose interests to protect.
Take the case of a homeowner's association which files a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seking an injunction poreventing a homeowner from maintaining her property in a way that they say violates the deed restrictions, and requiring that she make alterations to bring her house into compliance. In this particular case, the complaint was that when she built her home, she used vinyl siding. The architectural review committee of the homeower's association had not approved the use of this kind of siding.
In these types of cases, the Delaware courts start with the age old legal doctrine that favors the free use of one's land. For this reason, the courts in Delaware look suspiciously at restrictions that give an architectural review commitee authority to review plans because restrictions of this nature tend to be what the courts call "arbitrary and capricious" or unreasonable. Nevertheless, if the review and approval process is controlled by clear, specific and reasonable standards that require plans to meet specific requirements, the courts feel that the potential for arbitrary decisions is minimal, and they enforce the restrictions. On the other hand, if the committee review process is based only on aesthetic considerations, they're viewed as vague, imprecise or unclear and do not usually result in evenhanded application. In these instaances, the authority granted to the review committee is not enforced.
In this lawsuit, the deed restrictions said nothing about vinyl siding. The reasom the committee objected was because they felt that property values might be adversely affected. The court ruled that "a homeowner may begin construction before obtaining approval where the approving authority unreasonably refuses to approve the homeowner's plans."
