Quick Answer
Bryan v. Kittinger is a published North Carolina Court of Appeals decision (No. COA21-98, filed April 5, 2022, opinion by Judge Chris Dillon) between neighbors in a Granville County subdivision over backyard hens. A press report quoting the opinion says the court concluded that a 1998 covenant barring poultry but allowing "household pets" did not prevent a homeowner from keeping hens as household pets rather than for a commercial purpose, and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court's official summary also lists amendment-related terms (including "written agreement," "affirmative vote" and "duly-called meeting"). We could not read the opinion text, so this page does not state what the court held about amendments.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Bryan v. Kittinger, No. COA21-98 (N.C. Ct. App. April 5, 2022) (published). Reporter citation not verified. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals; author Judge Chris Dillon |
| Parties | Two lot owners (the Bryans, plaintiffs; the Kittingers, defendants). No association is described as a party in the sources we read. |
| Subject | Whether "household pets" in a covenant covers backyard chickens; the opinion's summary also references an amendment adopted by owners |
| Outcome | Per the press report quoting the opinion: summary judgment for the plaintiffs was error. Further disposition not verified. |
| Source status | PARTIAL. Opinion PDF could not be retrieved. |
The Dispute
According to a press report from the day the opinion was filed, William and Hannah Suh Kittinger moved into the Sleepy Hollow neighborhood in Granville County in 2016 and kept four hens in a backyard coop. In 2018, Antonia Lamar Bryan and Uvetia Bryan sued, saying the chickens were a nuisance that violated the community's covenant. The 1998 covenant, as quoted in the report, reads: "No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on the building site, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept, provided that they are not bred or maintained for any commercial purpose."
The Kittingers argued their chickens were household pets and were not kept commercially. In late 2019, the trial court sided with the Bryans. In 2020 the neighborhood adopted an amendment allowing up to five hens per home for non-commercial use, approved, the report says, by a majority of the 16 homeowners, and the trial court ruled the Kittingers could use the amendment as a defense. The report is a secondary source, and we did not verify these procedural details against the opinion.
What the Court Held
The press report quotes the opinion: "We conclude that the 1998 covenant does not prevent a homeowner in Sleepy Hollow to keep hens as 'household pets' and not otherwise for some 'commercial purpose.' Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs." We could not confirm this passage against the opinion itself.
The North Carolina Judicial Branch listing for the opinion gives these keywords: chicken, hens, poultry, household pet, restrictive covenant, amended, Planned Community Act, encumbrance, spouse, written agreement, affirmative vote, duly-called meeting, Rule 59 motion, Rule 60 motion. Those terms suggest the opinion discusses how the 2020 amendment was approved and whether the community is covered by the Planned Community Act. We do not know what the court decided on those points, and we are not stating it. Do not rely on this page for the rule on how a written-agreement amendment under G.S. 47F-2-117 must be signed. Read the opinion or ask counsel.
Why It Matters for Associations
- Pet and animal clauses can be litigated. The fight turned on whether "household pets" included chickens. Wording in your covenant matters.
- Approval of an amendment can become an issue. The court's summary mentions written agreements, affirmative votes and duly-called meetings. Follow the amendment procedure in your documents and statute strictly, and keep records of how each owner voted or signed.
- The case is between owners. As far as the sources we read show, no association was a party.
- Our reading: treat this page as a pointer to the opinion, not a summary of it.
Related North Carolina Law
- Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass'n (2006)
- G.S. 47F-2-117: declaration amendments
- Wise v. Harrington Grove (2003)
- Chapter 47F: Planned Community Act overview
- North Carolina HOA laws complete guide
Board Checklist
- Read the animal and pet clauses in your declaration and rules for undefined terms such as "household pets."
- Before adopting an amendment, confirm exactly how your declaration and G.S. 47F-2-117 or 47C-2-117 require approval (vote at a meeting, written agreement, or both).
- Keep signed ballots, written consents and meeting minutes for every amendment.
- Have counsel read the full Bryan opinion if an amendment or pet dispute is at issue.
- Record amendments promptly and keep copies with the association records.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Bryan v. Kittinger about?
A dispute between neighbors over whether keeping hens violated a covenant that barred poultry but allowed household pets.
Did the court say chickens can be household pets?
The press report quotes the opinion as concluding the covenant did not prevent keeping hens as household pets and not for a commercial purpose. We could not verify that against the opinion text.
Does this case decide how owners must sign a covenant amendment?
We cannot say. The opinion's summary mentions written agreements and votes, but we could not read what the court held.
Was an HOA a party?
The sources we read describe the plaintiffs and defendants as individual owners.
Where can I read the opinion?
The North Carolina Judicial Branch lists it as COA21-98, filed April 5, 2022, in its appellate opinions database.
Where This Comes From
We read the Judicial Branch's opinion listing for Bryan v. Kittinger (case number, filing date, author, published status, keywords) at nccourts.gov and a news report of April 5, 2022 that quotes the opinion. The opinion PDF would not load for us, and attempts to retrieve it from other mirrors failed, so the holding on amendments is not stated here.
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