The Court of Appeals has recently ruled that the application of the Planned Community Act, specifically, the fining provisions in G.S. §47F-3-107.1, can be constitutionally applied to pre-1999 communities, and such application is not a violation of the contracts clause of the constitution. In the case of Reidy v. Whitehart Association, 648 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. App. 2007), a homeowner brought suit against his homeowners association contending that the fines imposed by the association on the homeowner for the homeowner’s failure to follow the architectural approval process, was an unconstitutional violation of the contracts clause and a deprivation of the homeowners procedural and substantive due process rights. The Court of Appeals rejected all the homeowners’ arguments and affirmed the trial court’s order granting injunctive relief to the association and imposing fines of $25 per day against the homeowner.

Community Association Practice

On July 31, 2007 the North Carolina General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 1245 (A Act to Amend the Laws Relating to Retainage Payments on Public Construction Contracts), which will significantly change the law of public construction in North Carolina. The legislation will become effective on January 1, 2008.

New Requirements For Retainage

The legislation divides public construction projects into two types: (1) projects where the total project costs are less than $100,000.00, and (2) projects where the total project costs are equal to or greater than $100,000.00. No retainage may be held on projects less than $100,000.00. With regard to the larger projects, retainage is still allowed, but will now be subject to statutory requirements. The most important statutory rules, generally, are that: (1) no more than 5% retainage may be withheld from any payment, and (2) no further retainage may be withheld when the project is 50% complete. Read the rest of this entry »

On 17 July 2007 the North Carolina Court of Appeals handed down two decisions dealing with the interpretation of single family use restrictions found in community restrictive covenants.

In the case of Danaher v. Joffee and Winding Ridge Homeowners Association v. Joffe, the Court of Appeals held that certain university students encouraged to live together by their baseball coach were not a single familyfor purposes of the restrictive covenants governing the community. The restrictive covenants of the community in the Joffe cases provided, in part, no building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one single family residence and its customarily accessory buildings and uses. Read the rest of this entry »