Knoedler v. Blinco

• Decision Date: 23 April 2010
• Docket Number: 1081124.
• Citation: Knoedler v. Blinco, 50 So.3d 1047 (Ala. 2010)
• Parties: Steven KNOEDLER and Katherine Knoedler v. Leslie BLINCO et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

50 So.3d 1047

Steven KNOEDLER and Katherine Knoedler

v.Leslie BLINCO et al.

1081124.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 23, 2010.

John W. Parker, Daphne, for appellants.

Mark A. Newell of Masterson & Newell, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellees Leslie Blinco and Kathleen Blinco.

C. Robert Gottlieb, Jr., Mobile, for appellee Avalon Homeowners POA, Inc.

Carroll H. Sullivan and Carter R. Hale of Scott, Sullivan, Streetman & Fox, P.C., Mobile, for appellee Rance Reehl, individually and d/b/a Reehl Properties, Inc.

SHAW, Justice.

Steven Knoedler and Katherine Knoedler, the plaintiffs below, appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Leslie Blinco and Kathleen Blinco and a summary judgment in favor of defendant Avalon Homeowners POA, Inc. ("the homeowners association"), on the Knoedlers' claims alleging nuisance, negligence, and wanton misconduct, and seeking injunctive relief related to the Blincos' alleged violation of restrictive covenants imposed in the Avalon subdivision developed by Avalon Development, L.L.C. The Knoedlers also appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Rance Reehl (both individually anddoing business as Reehl Properties, Inc.) on the Knoedlers' fraud claim.

Facts and Procedural History

The Knoedlers and the Blincos own adjacent lots in Avalon, a residential subdivision in Daphne. In June 2005, the Blincos met with Reehl, a real-estate developer and one of the developers of the Avalon subdivision, regarding their desire to construct a residence on the property located in Avalon. During that initial meeting, Reehl discussed the existence of a restrictive covenant regarding the storage of a recreational vehicle ("RV") on property in Avalon. The applicable covenant provides as follows:

"4.11 No house trailer or mobile home shall be permitted on any Lot at any time. No more than one camper, motor van or similar recreational vehicle, nor more than one boat and boat trailer may be stored on the Lot at any time, nor shall any such camper, motor van or other recreational vehicle or boat and boat trailer be permitted to be parked or stored on the front or side lawn of the Lot but shall be stored to the rear of the Lot as inconspicuously from the street as practicable. In addition, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any camper, motor van or similar recreational vehicle or boat and boat trailer to be stored on any Lot must be approved by the [architectural review] committee. Automobiles may not be parked on the front or side lawn of any Lot."

Based upon Reehl's assurances that the covenant permitted a single RV to be stored on the property, the Blincos entered into a purchase agreement for the property. Thereafter, the Blincos' house plans, which included dedicated water and electrical hook-ups for their RV, were approved by the developers, and the house was constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The Blincos closed on their house on September 19, 2006, and moved in on September 20, 2006.

On September 25, 2006, the Knoedlers participated in a walk-through in conjunction with their purchase of a house that abuts the Blinco property. On that occasion, the Knoedlers observed an RV parked in the Blincos' driveway. According to the Knoedlers, when they questioned their real-estate agent, John Fowler,¹ and the builder, James Ray, both of whom were present, about the RV, Fowler indicated that he was unfamiliar with the RV but would attempt to obtain additional information. However, the Knoedlers assert that Ray informed them that the Blincos had just returned from a long trip and that the RV was parked there only temporarily and that it would be gone within 10 days. The Knoedlers subsequently closed on the property; they admit that, at least one to two weeks before closing, they were provided with and read a copy of the restrictive covenants applicable to the property.

When the Knoedlers' subsequently occupied their new residence, the RV was still present on the Blinco property. The Knoedlers made repeated complaints to the homeowners association, Reehl, and Fowler regarding the RV; a dispute ensued, and the Knoedlers repeatedly made requests of both the Blincos and the homeowners association that the RV be removed. In response to those complaints, and at the request of the developers, the Blincos ultimately constructed a privacy fence to conceal the RV. According to Reehl, one of the developers of Avalon, the fence, which obscured the RV from the street and the front of the property,brought the Blincos into compliance with § 4.11 of the restrictive covenants. The board of directors of the homeowners association² later confirmed that the Blincos had received both oral and written approval from Reehl to store the RV on the lot and that the presence of the RV was, therefore, not a violation of § 4.11. Those findings were conveyed to homeowners in Avalon by means of a letter dated November 7, 2007. Despite the board's conclusion, and because of the continued complaints regarding the visibility of the Blincos' RV, the board nonetheless recommended that the Blincos either extend their driveway behind their residence or move the RV to an RV-storage facility. In compliance with the Board's request, the Blincos subsequently extended their driveway to the rear of their property in order that the RV might be stored as near to the rear of the property as possible.

In May 2008, the Knoedlers filed the underlying action against the Blincos and the homeowners association, seeking damages and injunctive relief and alleging both that the Blincos' RV constituted a private nuisance and that it violated § 4.11 of the restrictive covenants...