Quick Answer
In Schwartz v. Banbury Woods Homeowners Association, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held on May 5, 2009 that a covenant requiring "campers and all similar property" to be parked in a garage or screened area covered an owner's motor home, that the board's screening resolution was not arbitrary or in bad faith, that the injunction was proper, and that $400 in fines were validly assessed under G.S. 47F-3-107.1. The court affirmed for the association.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Schwartz v. Banbury Woods Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., No. COA08-964, 196 N.C. App. 584 (2009) |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals, published; opinion by Chief Judge Martin |
| Filed | May 5, 2009 |
| Outcome | Affirmed |
| Subject | Covenant interpretation, board rule-making, injunction, fines procedure |
| Statutes | G.S. 47F-3-107.1; G.S. 47F-1-102(c) |
The Dispute
The Banbury Woods covenants, recorded in 1985, said owners could not park "boats, trailers, campers and all other similar property on the streets" and that such property "shall be parked in a garage or screened area." A 2005 amendment required the screened area to be approved by the Architectural Committee under rules adopted by the board. The owners, who bought in December 2005, parked a 2004 Tioga motor home behind their house starting in May 2006.
After a series of letters, a violation notice and an architectural request denial, the board held a hearing on November 27, 2007 and found a violation. It imposed a $100 daily fine under G.S. 47F-3-107.1, starting December 7, 2007. After $400 in fines, the owners moved the motor home off site and sued for a declaration that it was not covered, that the board's screening resolution was arbitrary, and for injunctive relief. The trial court ruled for the association and issued a mandatory injunction.
What the Court Held
A motor home is a "camper"
Applying strict construction but refusing to read covenants "in an unreasonable manner or a manner that defeats the plain and obvious purpose," the court used the 1985 dictionary meaning of "camper," a portable dwelling including an automotive vehicle used for casual travel and camping. It rejected reliance on later motor vehicle statutes, enacted years after the covenants were recorded, and held excluding the motor home would defeat the covenant's purpose.
The screening resolution was not arbitrary
The board adopted Resolution 2007-1 defining "screened area" (shielded from public view, with shrubbery or an approved fence). The court found the board had debated the issue for at least two years before the owners bought, including a 2004 community survey. The owners offered no evidence they were targeted or that the board acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or in bad faith.
The injunction was proper
A mandatory injunction is the proper remedy for enforcing a covenant, and the order required only compliance with the plain language of the covenants. The court found no abuse of discretion.
The fines complied with G.S. 47F-3-107.1
The community was created in 1985, but the court noted G.S. 47F-1-102(c) extends the fines procedure statute to pre-1999 communities for later events, unless the documents provide otherwise. The board's fine schedule resolution had not been added to the recorded covenants, so the court said the board was bound by the statute's procedure. It held the association complied: notice, a hearing on November 27, 2007 and a $100 daily fine.
Why It Matters for Associations
- Plain language wins. Courts read terms by their ordinary meaning when the covenant was written.
- Build a record for board rules. Minutes, surveys and long discussion supported the resolution.
- Follow the fine statute. Notice, hearing and decision notice supported the fines. Unrecorded fine schedules did not control.
- Limits. The court applied the 2007 text of the statute, which has since been amended. Our reading: confirm today's G.S. 47F-3-107.1, including the current daily cap. See our page on that section.
Related North Carolina Law
- G.S. 47F-3-107.1: fines and suspension hearing
- McVicker v. Bogue Sound Yacht Club (2017)
- Wise v. Harrington Grove (2003)
- G.S. 47F-1-102: applicability
- North Carolina HOA laws complete guide
Board Checklist
- Read parking and storage covenants for plain terms and any screening requirement.
- Adopt screening and parking definitions by written resolution with minutes.
- Send a written violation notice with a compliance deadline.
- Hold a hearing and send written notice of the decision before any fine.
- Confirm the fine amount against current G.S. 47F-3-107.1.
- Record fine schedules in the declaration if the documents require it.
- Apply rules consistently to every owner.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an HOA require a motor home to be screened?
In Schwartz, the court held a covenant covering "campers and all similar property" reached the owners' motor home.
Does the Planned Community Act apply to a 1985 community?
Some sections do. G.S. 47F-1-102(c) extends listed sections, including the fines procedure, to pre-1999 communities.
What was the fine?
$100 per day under the statute as it read then. The owners paid $400 before moving the vehicle.
Was the board's screening definition upheld?
Yes. The court found no evidence it was arbitrary, unreasonable or targeted.
Did the court require a specific hearing format?
The court found notice, a hearing and notice of the decision satisfied the statute here.
Is the fine cap still $100 a day?
Confirm with the current statute. See our G.S. 47F-3-107.1 page.
Where This Comes From
This page is based on the full text of the opinion, No. COA08-964 (filed May 5, 2009), 196 N.C. App. 584, as published in the Caselaw Access Project reporter copy, and the North Carolina Judicial Branch opinion listing. We did not research later history beyond a report that further review was denied.
How APM Helps
Association Property Managers provides remote HOA and condo management for associations in North Carolina, starting at a flat $99/month per community with no per-door fees or long-term contracts. See remote management in North Carolina, browse every North Carolina state-law guide, or request a free proposal, delivered within three business days. Laws and licensing rules differ by state, and we confirm the requirements for North Carolina when we build your proposal.
Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed North Carolina attorney before acting.
Ready to work with Association Property Managers?
Get a free, itemized proposal for your community — delivered within 3 business days.
Request a Free Proposal
