Details

Category: General Resources

Hits: 1754

Original 1976-1979 Merifield Inc./Wilson Official Lot Perk Results from Mecklenburg County

Details

Category: General Resources

Hits: 1042

The covenants on the right represent 16 major areas of the Merifield, Inc. (MI) sections of Merifield Acres. While there are some differences between the covenants, all MI covenants have the same paragraph 10 that fails to commit MALA to any duty to perform maintenance, having the operative word "may" instead of the required "shall". This prevents MALA from qualifying under the Virginia Property Owners' Association Act, which is the only mechanism that would otherwise be available to MALA in order for it to legally record statutory liens, and to sell property at an extrajudicial sale.

The Fielding covenants are provided for your reference only - they have no applicability to the lien issue.

Details

Category: General Resources

Hits: 1830

Merifield Acres Landowners' Association v. Walter Cummings and Kay Cummings, 1999 (Circuit Court)

This case is often quoted by some Board members as evidence that it authorizes assessments. This is not the case. Cummings refused to pay special assessments on several lots, citing a provision in the VPOAA that its special assessment provision couldn't override a prohibition against such that was in the declarations. Cummings also refused to pay assessments for non-perk lots, based on the prior practice of MALA not making assessments on such lots. The court ruled that a provision in the covenants paragraph 10(c)

"Any obligation of the Association to provide street and road maintenance and other such community services as may from time to time be implemented, terminated or renewed, shall be limited to the extent that such services can be provided with the proceeds derived from assessments collected pursuant to this paragraph."

did sustain the defendant's position that the covenants were not silent with regard to special assessments. The court upheld Cummings on this issue, and ruled that nothing in this decision would be deemed a determination that other provisions of the POAA are not applicable to MALA and its activities.

However, it should be noted that everyone involved in this case, including the judge, believed that MALA was subject to the VPOAA. No one argued otherwise, and the subject of applicability was not examined, reviewed, or otherwise considered. Since this was not an issue at trial, it set no precedent with respect to VPOAA applicability.

The court found for MALA regarding the assessment on non-perk lots, since that attribute (perk/non-perk) was never recognized or stated in the covenants. Any such relief offered by MALA was not authorized by the covenants, and MALA was actin beyond its authority. The fact that MALA had been allowing this exclusion was not relevant.

Merifield Acres Landowners' Association v. Arthur L. Girard and Elizabeth R. Girard (General District Court)

MALA had for some time allowed some property owners who had combined lots to pay only one assessment fee. It did not allow this privilege for the Girards, and it sued for assessments in the amount of $346.00. The court found that "...there is no basis in the covenants for the Association to combine such lots..." and found for MALA.