Illinois Court Limits HOA Power in Prairie Lakes Case

Illinois Court Limits HOA Power in Prairie Lakes Case

In a ruling reinforcing the need for consistency in architectural approvals, the Illinois Appellate Court recently sided with homeowners who challenged their association over alleged arbitrary and subjective building requirements. The case, Patel v. Prairie Lakes Homeowners Association of Illinois, Inc., 2023 IL App (2d) 230158-U, offers a cautionary tale for association boards attempting to enforce design restrictions beyond the scope of their governing documents or contradict past enforcement practices. This article will discuss the court’s decision in Patel and offer practical guidance to community associations.

Background

The Patels purchased a lot within the Prairie Lakes Homeowners Association. The Declaration contained numerous provisions specific to architectural guidelines, how owners within the Association should apply for approval of building plans, and standards that the owners’ contractors must meet to be approved within the association. The Patels submitted plans to build a 4,910-square-foot, two-story home. Their builder, Distinctive Homes by DeMarco, and architect, Michael Grimson, had worked in the subdivision for years.

The association’s architectural review board initially responded with 23 items to address. DeMarco promptly submitted revised plans addressing each comment. The architectural review board promptly failed to respond to the revised submission, and construction commenced. A month later, the management company identified seven issues that prevented the architectural review board from approving the Patels’ application. DeMarco responded that the problems had been addressed. Still, the following day, the Patels received a cease-and-desist letter from the association’s attorney, citing alleged deficiencies that were either already addressed or not required by the governing documents.

The Patels filed suit seeking declaratory relief that their home plans be approved “as-is” and that the association’s additional demands, from requiring copper roofing to adding porch masonry and interior design elements, be declared unenforceable. The trial court ruled entirely in favor of the homeowners, and the association appealed.

Court’s Holding and Analysis

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that association discretion in reviewing and approving architectural applications must not be arbitrary, subjective, or inconsistent with the association’s governing documents.

1. Copper Roofing Requirement Rejected

The association insisted the Patels use copper roofing material, but the governing documents only required copper for flashing ornamental features or metal roofs. The court found the broader copper roofing mandate to be an arbitrary and subjective overreach, mainly since numerous other homes in the subdivision had asphalt shingles. This inconsistency undercut any claim of a uniform architectural standard.

2. Side Entry Roof and Porch Masonry Not Required

The association also demanded a roof over a side entry door and adding masonry piers to the porch columns. However, the court found no such requirements in the governing documents and noted that many homes in the subdivision lacked these features.

3. Additional Windows on Rear Elevation Unnecessary

The association wanted the Patels to install extra windows in the rear elevation despite plans already including second-floor windows. The Patels explained that the area in question was to house an indoor basketball court, and the court agreed that mandating first-floor windows there was arbitrary and posed potential safety risks. The court noted other homes in the subdivision lacked side and rear elevation windows, reinforcing the lack of a consistent standard.

4. Interior Design Elements Declared Moot

The association initially requested specific interior design features, such as factory-milled staircases with wrought-iron balusters and detailed ceilings. The court found this demand moot, as the homeowners had already included these features or the association had indicated it would not enforce them.

Practical Recommendations for Community Associations

The Patel decision highlights several important lessons for Illinois community associations:

1. Governing Documents Must Be Clear and Consistent

Ambiguity in design standards can lead to inconsistent enforcement and costly litigation. Boards should regularly review architectural guidelines to ensure that required elements are clearly stated and enforceable. If the documents require specific features, such as copper flashing, they must be enforced uniformly across all homes.

2. Subjectivity and Aesthetics Have Limits

While governing documents often allow boards to exercise discretion in maintaining a community’s aesthetics, that discretion must be grounded in objective criteria. Courts will strike down purely subjective demands, particularly when applied inconsistently or unsupported by the governing documents.

3. Maintain Transparent and Efficient Review Processes

Delays and miscommunication, like the association’s failure to review DeMarco’s timely responses, only erode trust. Boards should implement clear timelines and designate a single point of contact to avoid conflicting communications between the board, architectural review committee, and management.

4. Past Practice Matters

An association’s historical tolerance of deviations undermines future enforcement. In Patel, the plaintiffs could show that many existing homes lacked the same features the association now demanded. This kind of selective enforcement is legally risky and should be avoided unless the association has formally amended its standards and communicated these changes to owners.

5. Know When to Pick Your Battles

The Patel case illustrates the reputational and financial costs of digging in on discretionary architectural matters. While maintaining community standards is essential, boards must weigh the benefit of enforcement against the risk of being deemed arbitrary or unreasonable.

Conclusion

The appellate court’s affirmation in Patel reminds community associations to enforce the governing documents consistently. The governing documents control and must be interpreted and enforced fairly and consistently. Architectural review boards and association directors must not exceed their authority or treat owners unequally.

If your association is unsure whether a design guideline is enforceable or if you’re facing pushback from an owner on an architectural matter, consult experienced counsel early. The attorneys at Hirzel Law, PLC, are here to help community associations confidently navigate these issues.

 

Jeremy Fernando is an Associate Attorney at Hirzel Law, PLC., Mr. Fernando is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois. He concentrates his practice on community association law, condominium law, homeowners association law, and real estate law. Mr. Fernando’s legal career includes serving in corporate practice where he represented insurance companies and institutional investors in U.S. and cross-border private placements of securities, including transactions in the Netherlands, England, Ireland, Australia, and Germany. Mr. Fernando earned his Juris Doctor from Marquette University Law School, where he graduated with honors and ranked in the top 15% of his class. He also served as an Associate Editor of the Marquette Law Review. Mr. Fernando is committed to providing effective legal representation to his clients and is passionate about helping communities navigate complex legal challenges. He may be reached at 312-552-7669 or jfernando@hirzellaw.com.