What you need to know
- Restrictive alliances are strictly interpreted: Courts apply that restrictive alliances must be literally interpreted and that all ambiguities are solved by the owner in favor of the unrestricted use of their country. Here the court found that section 8.1 (c) of the HOA declaration, which specifically fences and their requirements, was more ruled than section 8.1 (DD), which set a setback of 30 feet for “accessory buildings” but did not mention fences.
- Using theory of intentions: Under “Expressio unus EST Exclusio alterius”, the court decided that the mention of fences in some sections did not show in the setbacks (8.1 (DD)).
- Hoa's own actions undermine their position: The association's architectural control committee had approved the fence with full knowledge of the 4-inch setback location, and they only tried to change the explanation in order to add the requirements for the setback of the fence to the fence.
introduction
In a recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division, the court confirmed an order to issue a summary judgment in which it was found that a setback that was stated in a section of the explanation of a homeowners' association did not regulate a fences in which the language was not expressly indicated that this was the case and the regulations of the city were postponed.
Ests. In Layton's Lakes Home Owner Ass'n, Inc. against WatsonNo. A-3123-23, 2025 NJ Super. Unpub. Lexis 760 (app. Div. May 7, 2025).
background
The plaintiff, the goods at Layton's Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Association”), is a non -profit society that rules a shared apartment in Carney's point township. The accused Bonnie Watson and Lorraine Bock (the “defendants”) have a house on half a hectare property within this community (“property”). In 2008, the association recorded an explanation with Covenants, conditions and restrictions (the “explanation”) that can be used for real estate within the municipality, including property. In addition, the declaration contains a section of “protection bundles”, which shows the restriction of the use of their land by the owners.
In particular, section 8.1 (c) requires the explanation that “fence, wall, hedge, mass planting or similar continuous structure” must be: (1) a maximum of four feet; (2) approved by the architecture control committee (the “committee”); (3) Not in contradiction to a municipal regulation; (4) made of wood, white PVC or black aluminum tube; And (5) of an open style. The zoning regulations of Carney's Point Township (the “Ordinance”) banned fences, which were built less than four inches from a real estate line from a real estate line without the written approval of the adjacent owner. Carney's Point Township, NJ. Code § 94-12 (1982). In addition, Section 8.1 (DD) provided the declaration to set up at least 30 feet on any “accessories, scales, shack, veranda or other similar improvement structure”, which is located on any property within the municipality.
In November 2022, the accused tried to build a fence on property. An overview of the property showed the exact size (forty -eight inches) and the position of the fence (four inches from the property line along the pages and the back of the property). The accused received a approval of the Zoning board and the approval of the committee, which did not indicate that the height or location of the fence violated the declaration. After the fence had been built, the association tried to change section 8.1 (c) of the explanation in order to expand a setback of ten feet within the community, although the setback in section 8.1 (DD) was applied to fences. The proposed change was rejected by home owners.
In September 2023, the association filed a complaint in which a declaratory judgment was submitted in which it was found that section 8.1 (DD) of the explanation regulates fences within the community and applied for a relief in which the accused had to remove the fence, since it was within the named setback of thirty feet.
In response to this, the accused submitted an answer and counter -tracking, in which the court rule that Section 8.1 (c) of the explanation fences regulated and that it postponed the setback of four inches specified in the regulation.
The Chancellor's court issued a summary judgment in favor of the accused and refused the association's application for a summary judgment. The court decided that a clear, clear reading of the explanation shows that section 8.1 (c) fences and foreign exchange regulates the regulation in which the fence of the accused does not violate.
The decisions
In the appeal, the association stated that the court incorrectly stated that section 8.1 (c) of the declaration was postponed for two reasons in the regulation on fence setback requirements: (1) The court was isolated and not in isolation and was not considered in isolation and did not take into account the wider context of the remaining provisions in the explanation, in particular section 8.1 (DD); And (2) The court based the decision on the personal opinion of the judge that the setbacks were not “aesthetically appealing” and differed from setbacks in other communities.
The appeal department rejected the first argument of the association in which the mention of “Zaun[s]”In Section 8.1 (c) of the explanation, but not, but not, however, implies section 8.1 (DD) that the omission was intended. The explanation is a restrictive covenant that is subject to the general contract structures, including the interpretation of the contract that is focused on the intention of the parties. In accordance with the doctrine of the doctrine of the doctrine Expression of the exclusion of anotherThe involvement of a thing implies the intention of excluding another. In addition, restrictive alliances are subject to strict constructions in which a judge should interpret a document according to his literal conditions without looking for another source to determine its importance. All ambiguities in a restrictive covenant must be resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of ownership by the owner.
Here, section 8.1 (c) of the declaration expressly applies to fences and silence to setbacks, but requires that a fence must be approved by the committee. However, a fence must not be conflict with a municipal regulation, which requires a 4-inch setback in Carney's Point Township. Section 8.1 (DD) appears twenty -seven afterwards and does not have the word “fence”. The word “fence” only appears in section 8.1 (c) and 8.1 (z) (which does not apply to the property of the property) of the explanation, not in section 8.1 (DD). The mention of “fence[s]”In other sections and excluding from section 8.1 (DD), the omission implies. Therefore, in its entire section 8.1 (c) applies to fences and defers for the regulation in which the fence does not violate property.
In addition, the regulation was issued 26 years before the explanation was recorded, so the association of Carney's Point Township from four-inch return requirements for fences should be aware of. If the declaration intended a larger setback, they should have explicitly explain this. In fact, the association had the opportunity to advise that the fence violated the declaration when the accused presented their application to the committee. Instead, their application was approved for the construction on the property with a survey that represents the exact location of the fence and a reference to a setback of four inches.
Finally, the court found no support in the records for the argument of the association that the court's decision was based on the judge's personal statement. The judge found that § 8.1 (c) fences, not from section 8.1 (DD), by analyzing the simple and unambiguous language of the explanation. The judge of the court has not tried to rewrite the declaration or to find a meaning for his language outside the limits of the document. Rather, he only made a remark that he had never heard of a 30-foot setback for fences, and such a setback would significantly reduce the size of the usable garden of the accused.
Get away
In this case, it is emphasized that restrictive agreements against those who want to exercise must be strictly enforced and have to be presented in a clear clear language. The lack of a clear language means that a court rejected it to enforce such a covenant. For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O'Donnell at modonnell@riker.com, Matthews Florez at mflorez@riker.com or Shelley Wu at swu@riker.com. We recognize our summer employees Maya Pacheco-Smith, Rutgers Law School, for their valuable contribution to this article.
The content of this article is intended to offer a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought through your specific circumstances.