Saurabh Bagchi and Somali Chaterji v. Amberleigh Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (mem. dec.)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 19A-PL-2070

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; March 13, 2020; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Memorandum Decision, dated March 13, 2020, outlines an appeal by Saurabh Bagchi and Somali Chaterji (Property Owners) against the Amberleigh Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA) regarding a judgment mandating the modification of their non-compliant fence as per subdivision restrictive covenants. The trial court’s decision is affirmed, addressing two key issues presented by the Property Owners: 

1. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the HOA had rejected the Property Owners' proposed fence plan.
2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the HOA’s three-year delay in notifying the Property Owners of the fence's non-compliance did not imply acquiescence to the fence's existence.

The Property Owners reside in a subdivision governed by the Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which mandates that all structural changes, including fences, require prior written approval from the HOA’s Architectural Committee. Failure to receive a response within thirty days is deemed as compliance with these requirements. The relevant sections emphasize the need for architectural control and specific guidelines for fences, including design and maintenance stipulations.

In 2014, Property Owners contacted Steve Abston, president of the HOA, to inquire about installing a fence. Abston explained the installation specifications and provided links to the Covenants and an approval request form. On June 2, 2014, Property Owners submitted plans for an eight-foot fence for added safety and security. Abston, who served as the sole authority for HOA approvals from 2014 to summer 2017, acknowledged receipt of the submission but informed the Property Owners on June 23, 2014, that the Covenants did not allow an eight-foot fence. After further inquiries from the Property Owners, Abston confirmed on July 7, 2014, that he had consulted others and the height was indeed not permitted. Despite expressing frustration about the height restrictions, the Property Owners agreed to wait for further information. Abston reiterated on July 24, 2014, that the proposed fence did not comply with the Covenants, indicating that any potential approval would require a meeting. In August 2014, the Property Owners proceeded to construct a six-foot wooden fence, which did not conform to the required scalloped design, without obtaining written approval. The construction lasted approximately two weeks without any intervention from Abston or complaints from other residents. Abston later testified that he was unaware of the fence installation. His presidency ended in summer 2017.

On January 26, 2018, the Homeowners Association (HOA) filed a complaint against Property Owners for violating Covenants by installing an unapproved fence that did not conform to the specified guidelines. The HOA sought a court order for the removal of the fence. Property Owners responded on March 26, 2018, and a bench trial took place on January 29, 2019, following the submission of a Joint Stipulation of Facts by both parties. On June 7, 2019, the trial court ruled in favor of the HOA, establishing that the HOA had rejected the Property Owners’ fence proposal. The court instructed the Property Owners to submit a modified fence plan that would meet HOA standards, and if no agreement was reached by June 7, 2020, the fence must be removed. The Property Owners' subsequent motion to correct error was denied, leading to their appeal.

The appellate review will apply the "clearly erroneous" standard under Ind. Trial Rule 52, focusing on the trial court's findings and the credibility of witnesses. The Property Owners contested the trial court's conclusion that their fence proposal was rejected, arguing that the HOA’s failure to provide written approval within thirty days implied approval according to Section 6.2 of the Covenants. The court emphasized the nature of restrictive covenants as contracts that limit land use to preserve property values, asserting that such covenants are enforceable if clear and not contrary to public policy. The stipulation confirmed that Property Owners submitted plans for an eight-foot fence, which deviated from the Covenants, lacking compliance in all aspects.

On June 23, 2014, Abston informed Property Owners that their request for an eight-foot fence was not supported by regulations, prompting them to grant him additional time for further investigation. After consulting with others, Abston confirmed that the fence proposal violated the Covenants and issued a written denial instead of approval. The Property Owners contended that the HOA's three-year delay in addressing the fence constituted laches, waiver, or acquiescence. Despite questioning Abston's claims of ignorance regarding the fence's presence, the trial court determined the HOA did not acquiesce to the construction of the non-compliant fence. Furthermore, Section 10.2 of the Covenants stipulates that delays in enforcement do not waive the HOA's rights to enforce the restrictions, which is enforceable in Indiana. As a result, the HOA retains the right to enforce the Covenants against the Property Owners, regardless of the time elapsed since the fence was erected. The judgment upholding this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Indiana.