Jacoby v. Hamptons Cmty. Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. ED 107875,ED 107875
• Citation: 602 S.W.3d 869
• Parties: Stephen and Cheryl JACOBY, Respondents, v. The HAMPTONS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

602 S.W.3d 869

Stephen and Cheryl JACOBY, Respondents,

v.The HAMPTONS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants.

No. ED 107875

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: June 9, 2020

For Appellants: Lester C. Stuckmeyer, Jr., 105 Concord Plaza, Ste. 209, St. Louis, MO 63128.

For Respondents: James D. Ribaudo, 701 Market St., Ste. 200, St. Louis, MO 63101, Joshua G. Knight, 423 Jackson St., St. Charles, MO 63301.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge

Introduction

The Hamptons Community Association, Inc. ("the HOA") and HOA board members Anne Ritter, Chris Dickhans, and Randy McKinley (collectively "Appellants") appeal from the trial court's declaratory judgment in favor of Stephen and Cheryl Jacoby ("the Jacobys") invalidating the HOA's amended parking restrictions, invalidating fines imposed on the Jacobys, ordering that the Jacobys’ vote be counted in an HOA board member election, and awarding attorneys’ fees of $9445.35 to the Jacobys. Appellants first argue that the trial court erred in invalidating the amended parking restrictions and corresponding fines because the restrictions were passed by a two-thirds vote as required by the HOA's covenants and restrictions. In their second point on appeal, Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to the Jacobys. For the first time on appeal, Appellants argue that amending the subdivision parking restrictions required only a two-thirds vote of property owners, regardless of whether the amendments created a new burden of ownership on property owners of the Hamptons Subdivision. This argument materially differs from the argument presented to the trial court—that only a two-thirds vote of property owners was required because the amended parking restrictions did not create a new burden of ownership. For that reason, Appellants’ argument is not preserved and may not now be presented on appeal. However, the record does not suggest the presence of any special circumstances justified an award of attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment as to the declaratory judgment action but reverse the trial court's award of attorneys’ fees.

Factual and Procedural History

The Jacobys own a home in the Hamptons Subdivision. After the Jacobys purchased their home, the HOA amended the parking restrictions in the HOA covenants and restrictions by a two-thirds vote of the property owners. The amendments extended restrictions to the parking of personal vehicles on subdivision streets that previously had applied only to commercial vehicles. Pursuant to the amended parking restrictions, the Jacobys were fined $1375.00 for parking their personal vehicles on the subdivision streets. Because the Jacobys refused to pay the fines, the HOA disqualified their vote in the next HOA election to select the HOA board members.

The Jacobys filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Appellants asking the trial court to invalidate the amended parking restrictions. The Jacobys maintained that unanimous consent of the property owners was required for the amended parking restrictions to be valid. The Jacobys also sought attorneys’ fees. The Jacobys later amended the petition also to request that the parking fines imposed as a result of the invalid amendment be voided and that their vote be counted in the previously held HOA board member election. Appellants argued to the trial court that because the amended parking restrictions only modified existing burdens of ownership and did not create any new burdens of ownership, only a two-thirds vote of property owners was required to amend the parking restrictions. The Jacobys and Appellants agreed to try the case on stipulated facts.

The trial court found that the amended parking restrictions imposed a new burden of ownership by extending the parking restrictions to personal vehicles, and, therefore, unanimous consent of the subdivision property owners was required. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Jacobys, invalidated the amended parking restrictions, invalidated the fines imposed on the Jacobys, and ordered that the Jacobys’ vote be counted in the HOA board member election. The trial court found special circumstances existed to justify the award of attorneys’ fees to the Jacobys in the sum of $9445.35 because there existed a clear body of applicable Missouri law contrary to Appellants’ position. The trial court noted that the Jacobys had to spend their own money to fund the litigation whereas the Appellants were able to utilize funds received through HOA dues, and that the Jacobys were fined and subsequently had their vote in the HOA election disqualified. Appellants now appeal.

Points on Appeal

In Point One, Appellants contend the trial court erred in invalidating the amended parking restrictions and the associated fines. In Point Two, Appellants allege the trial court erred in finding special circumstances that authorized the award of attorneys’ fees.

Discussion

I. Rule 84.04¹ –Points Relied On

Preliminarily, we note that Appellants’ points relied on are deficient in that neither point specifies how the trial court erred or why the trial court's error supports reversal as required by Rule 84.04(d)(1). In particular, Appellants merely state in both points that the trial court erred in its judgment. Point One reads:

The trial court committed error in invalidating Amendment 4 to the covenant and restrictions, the fines for violation of the amendment and the reinstatement of the election vote[.]

Similarly, Point Two reads:

The trial court committed error in finding special circumstances that authorized the award of respondents attorney's fees.

Neither point relied on identifies the legal basis or reasoning for reversal nor the standard under which we should conduct our review. See Rule 84.04(d)(1). Nevertheless, we have discretion to review non-compliant points relied on when the arguments are readily ascertainable. Scott v. King, 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (internal citation omitted). Because we understand Appellants’ arguments as elaborated in the argument portions of their brief, we exercise our discretion to proceed in our review. See id.

II. Point One—Validity of the Amended Parking Restrictions

In Point One, Appellants challenge the trial court's judgment finding that the HOA's amendments to the parking restrictions are invalid.

Subsequent to the trial court's judgment in this case and Appellants filing their notice of appeal but prior to the filing of their brief, the Supreme Court of Missouri addressed HOA voting procedures in Trs. of Clayton Terrace Subdivision v. 6 Clayton Terrace, LLC, 585 S.W.3d 269 (Mo. banc 2019). Particularly relevant to this appeal, Clayton Terrace clarified that an HOA could validly amend subdivision restrictions without unanimous consent of the property owners in a broader range of circumstances than suggested by some judicial authorities. The Supreme Court noted that prior appellate opinions had misinterpreted and misapplied the Supreme Court's holding in Van Deusen v. Ruth, 343 Mo. 1096, 125 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1938) when requiring unanimous consent. Id. at 279–82. Understandably, Appellants now offer Clayton Terrace to maintain that the trial court erred when it invalidated the amended parking restrictions for lack of a unanimous approval because only a two-thirds approval vote was required to impose the amended parking restrictions even if the amendments created a new burden of ownership on the property owners . Unfortunately for Appellants, their current argument is both different from and substantially broader than what Appellants presented to the trial court—that the amended parking restrictions did not create a new burden of ownership.

"It is well recognized that a party should not be entitled on appeal to claim error on the part of the trial court when the party did not call attention to the error at trial and did not give the court the opportunity to rule on the question." Brown v. Brown, 423 S.W.3d 784, 787 (Mo. banc 2014) (per curiam) (internal quotation omitted). "We will not consider arguments not raised below and made for the first time on appeal." Osage Mobile Home Park, LLC v. Jones, 571 S.W.3d 623, 624 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). The foundation of this principle rests upon our firmly held position that "we will not convict a trial court of error for an issue not presented for its determination." Dotson v. Dillard's, Inc., 472 S.W.3d 599, 603 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, issues not presented to the trial court are waived for the purposes of appellate review.² See State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109, 117 (Mo. banc 2008) (internal citation omitted).

The record clearly shows that Appellants raise a new argument on appeal that simply was not presented to the trial court. We recognize that the holding in Clayton Terrace relates to the core issues of this case. And while it is reasonable and understandable that Appellants want to present their new argument in light of the Supreme Court holding in Clayton Terrace, we find no cases allowing an exception to the overarching rule of waiver based upon the facts before us. Indeed, Appellants could have made the argument they now present on appeal to the trial court, as did the litigants in Clayton Terrace. But Appellants chose not to do so.³ Because Appellants did not present their argument in Point One to the trial court, it was not preserved for our review and is therefore waived. See Fassero, 256 S.W.3d at 117 ; Brown, 423 S.W.3d at 787. Point One is denied.

III. Point Two—Attorneys’ Fees

In Point Two, Appellants contend the trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees.

We review awards of attorneys’ fees for whether the trial court abused its discretion. Ellis v. Hehner, 448 S.W.3d 320, 326 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is "against the logic of the circumstances...