Hildenbrand v. Avignon Villa Homes Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date | 15 January 2021 |
Docket Number | 245,120 |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Parties | JIM HILDENBRAND, and JAMES B. HILDENBRAND, Trustee of the JAMES B. HILDENBRAND LIVING TRUST, Dated March 1, 2012, Appellees/Cross-appellants, v. AVIGNON VILLA HOMES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant/Cross-appellee. |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Johnson District Court; Rhonda K. Mason, judge.
Lawrence L. Ferree, III, and Brett T. Runyon, of Ferree Bunn, Rundberg & Ridgway, Chtd., of Overland Park, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Eldon J. Shields, of Gates Shields Ferguson Swall Hammond, P.A., of Overland Park, for appellees/cross-appellants.
Before Atcheson, P.J., Bruns, J., and Burgess, S.J.
A long-running legal battle between James B. Hildenbrand and Avignon Villa Homes Community Association that oversees the development where he lives has returned to us for a second visit. In the first appeal, we reversed and remanded a judgment the Johnson County District Court entered for the Homes Association requiring Hildenbrand to remove extensive and unapproved landscaping to his home. In a bench trial, the district court incorrectly applied the governing statutory standard in reviewing the determination of a Homes Association committee to reject Hildenbrand's landscaping plans. After reopening discovery and hearing additional evidence on remand, the district court ultimately: (1) found the Homes Association's Architectural Review Committee did not act in good faith and, therefore, violated K.S.A 2015 Supp. 58-4604(a) when it rejected the bulk of Hildenbrand's landscaping plans; (2) set aside the earlier order requiring Hildenbrand to remove the landscaping; (3) rescinded an award of attorney fees to the Homes Association; and (4) ordered Hildenbrand to pay $25, 000 in contractual fines to the Homes Association because he did not get approval from the Architectural Review Committee before landscaping his home.
The Homes Association has appealed, and Hildenbrand has cross-appealed. We affirm the district court in all respects except the amount of the fines. The district court's reasoning and the record support fines of $17, 600. We remand to the district court for the limited purposes of revising the amount of the fines.
We draw on our earlier opinion to set out the factual background and the procedural history leading up to the first remand to the district court. See Hildenbrand v. Avignon Villa Homes Community Association, Inc., No. 114, 040, 2016 WL 6350201 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion) (Hildenbrand I). In what Hildenbrand I described as a condensed account, we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial