Trial court erred in abrogating homeowner’s obligation to pay fees to HOA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s ruling that changes in a gated residential vacation and retirement community were so radical as to abrogate a homeowner’s obligation to pay yearly fees to the homeowners association.

In 1998, Clarence Ray Meador and his wife bought a lot, which included a double-wide trailer and a 40-foot boat dock, in Country Squire Lakes Community in North Vernon. In 2006, Meador purchased an adjacent lot. The annual dues are $75 per lot and the current assessment is $300 per lot. As the economy fluctuated, investors purchased lots for rental or contract properties and the community shifted from owner-occupied to tenant-occupied. The rental property owners frequently stopped making payments to the HOA. Currently, 60 to 65 percent of these owners are delinquent on their fees and assessments, leaving the HOA with a $3 million to $4 million revenue shortfall.

As a result, dues and assessments are used on essentials such as payments on a $950,000 improvement loan, repairs to a dam, insurance and limited road maintenance, leaving insufficient funds to maintain the recreational amenities. Meador paid his dues and assessments and tried to influence the HOA board of directors in their budgetary decisions but he was ignored, and he has been unsuccessful at getting a financial audit of the HOA.

The trial court abrogated Meador’s obligation to pay dues and assessments, concluding the changes in the community had been so radical that the original purpose of the community and the deed restrictions had been defeated long ago. It also ruled that Meador could still vote at the HOA meetings because his obligation to pay had been abrogated.

In its appeal, the HOA argued the trial court’s decision “conflicts with long-established Indiana contract law.”

The COA agreed with the HOA, finding the lack of recreational facilities is not radical enough to justify the abrogation of a private contractual property covenant and that the HOA bylaws clearly state the financial obligations of homeowners.

Although the COA appreciated the trial court’s attempt to provide relief, the majority stated, “the relief provided is not one afforded under Indiana law, and thus we cannot affirm the judgment. The abrogation of Meador’s obligation to pay dues and assessments is not a remedy for these problems, but there are potential alternatives that Meador and the HOA can investigate.”



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.