Recent Cases Cause Uncertainly Regarding Residential Restrictions and the N.C. Real Property Marketable Title Act

You may have heard about the recent pair of cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals involving the North Carolina Real Property Marketable Title Act, which is codified at NCGS Chapter 47B.  The two decisions are C Investments 2, LLC v. Auger et al., and C.E. Williams III et al. v. Reardon et al. These decisions will have a significan adverse impact to North Carolina HOAs and condominiums if allowed to stand - but we don't believe that they will be allowed to stand.

The Marketable Title Act was passed almost 50 years ago and was designed to extinguish certain title flaws or encumbrances, if they had not appeared in any recorded documents within a given chain of title within the past 30 years.  The point was to clarify title and remove minor, old or forgotten matters of title if they had not reoccurred, been rerecorded, or been litigated within the past 30 years of when the title was being examined.  The Marketable Title Act has a number of exceptions for things which are not extinguished even though they may be more than 30 years old, including an exception for "covenants applicable to a general or uniform scheme of development which restrict the property to residential use only, provided said covenants are otherwise enforceable."  This exception had always been interpreted by real property and homeowners association lawyers to mean that restrictive covenants for residential subdivisions were excepted from the Marketable Title Act and therefore remain in place in perpetuity, as most covenants specifically provide, even if they are older than 30 years and even if they don't appear in a given chain of title within the past 30 years.

The Court of Appeals unfortunately ruled contrary to the longstanding common opinion and practice, interpreting the above-quoted provision to mean that residential restrictive covenants which have not appeared in a given chain of title within the past 30 years are completely extinguished, other than any provision specifically restricting the property to residential use only.  While the Court of Appeals took the position that this was a plain reading of the plain words of the statute, that reading if allowed to stand would upend every subdivision with restrictive covenants 30 years or more old and cause chaos in the chains of title of thousands of homes and residential subdivisions statewide.

For example, imagine an older subdivision with residential restrictive covenants of the typical sort, which were originally recorded more than 30 years ago.  Mr. and Ms. Jones reside on Lot 1 and have lived in their home for 31 years.  Mr. and Ms. Smith live on Lot 2 and just bought their home last year.  Based on these Court of Appeals rulings, the covenants are now extinguished on Mr. and Ms. Jones' property, other than the restriction that it can only be used for single family residential purposes.  So they can quit paying dues, maintain old junked cars on cinderblocks in their front yard, and allow their home to fall into complete disrepair.  On the other hand, what is the situation next door at the Smiths?  It depends on what the deed they received said, and what the deeds of all the other folks in the chain of title for their lot in the past 30 years said.  If the recorded restrictive covenants were mentioned in any of those deeds, then by the Court of Appeal's reasoning, they have been revived and the Smiths must comply with every provision of those restrictions.  If none of the deeds mentioned the restrictions, then they get to be scofflaws just like their neighbors the Joneses.  What if their deed said something vague like, "This deed is subject to all documents of record"?  Who knows?  The Court of Appeals doesn't tell us.  Thus, chaos.

It is a universal opinion among real property and homeowners association attorneys in the state that these decisions were wrong.  The General Assembly is currently reviewing legislation to make corrections to the Marketable Title Act that will put things back the way they have always been.  The chaos which will result if that does not happen it is a strong assurance that it will. 

Bottom line: We do not believe that this is a situation which should be of concern for North Carolina HOAs or condominiums at this time. We believe the General Assembly will remedy the matter. Of course we will be monitoring the situation and will provide further updates as they occur.

Contact us if we can provide any further information, and thank you for following the NC HOA Law Blog.

When it Rains, it May Pour on Your Homeowners Association

Do you have one of these lovely structures in your yard?

 

It seems like it rained most all of this past winter.  It rained for 4 days straight as this post was being written, and regardless of your beliefs regarding climate change, it is a fact that we in the Carolinas have had more than our fair share of rain over the last few years.

Rain, and the flow of it across the ground that we call storm water management, is probably the most common issue we face regularly as homeowners association attorneys.  I've certainly been fielding a lot of calls lately about it. 

The general rule regarding storm water is that a property owner is not liable to neighboring property owners for storm water flowing across his or her property onto their property, unless the property owner has changed the natural flow of storm water across his or her property in a way that adversely affects the neighbor by directing more water onto the neighbor's property than would otherwise naturally occur.  

Thus, in general, each homeowner in a homeowners association is responsible for storm water flow across his or her property and cannot blame his or her uphill neighbor for storm water naturally flowing downhill onto his lot, unless he can show that the neighbor made changes to his lot which are directing an unnatural amount of water onto him/her.  It is important to keep this common law concept in mind if you are having grading work done on your property or putting in an in-ground swimming pool, for example.  You must do so in a way in which manages the storm water on your own property and does not direct additional storm water onto your neighbors.

We often hear from our homeowners association clients when property owners in the neighborhood demand that the association step in to correct adverse drainage across the owner's lot.  Take a look at this awful situation:

Unfortunately in almost all cases, the homeowner's wish to make poor drainage the association’s responsibility is headed down the drain.  Unless the restrictive covenants provide otherwise, storm water pipes, drains, swales, ditches, and the like on a homeowner's lot are that homeowner's responsibility to maintain, and an individual homeowner rarely has recourse against any other parties for excessive storm water coursing across the surface of his or her lot, or for the maintenance and repair of storm water pipes installed within their lot. That bell tolls for him or her and no one else.

In general, homeowmers own their lots down to the center of the earth and up into the sky as far as the eye can see, and everything in between.  This includes any storm water pipes installed on or under the property, even though the storm water pipe was probably installed by the developer or the home builder, not the homeowner, and even though the storm water pipe may drain water from other lots, common areas, or roads of the neighborhood and not just from the homeowner's own lot.  

From the prospective of the homeowner's association, this is the correct result.  The primary purposes of a homeowner's association are to maintain property values and maintain the common elements.  It is not a police force, nor is it a public works department.  The association did not design, approve, or construct the lots or the roads, nor does it usually have the right to go upon lots to correct topography or drainage, nor does it typically have the financial resources to do so.  The homeowner must generally look to his or her own resources or confer with their neighbors to address storm water problems.  

Occasionally, storm water apparatus may be maintained by the local municipality, and if so that municipality should always be the first recourse to assist with storm water issues.  Most cities and counties have storm water engineers on staff due to the increasing requirements of the federal government under the Clean Water Act and most are more than willing to come out and meet on site to examine issues.  Occasionally, there may also be issues with storm water catch basins or drains constructed within city streets or state-maintained roads, so the city transportation department or North Carolina Department of Transportation, if a state road, are often good resources.  Remember that in North Carolina, counties do not maintain roads, so do not call your local county government with street or road related issues in most cases.

 The only instances where a homeowner's association might have liability for storm water issues are where the association owns adjacent common area.  If the association itself has made topographic changes to common area it owns and which is causing adverse drainage onto a neighbor's lots, then it of course may be liable.  And in some case, the restrictive covenants for the neighborhood specifically provide that the association is to maintain the storm water management structures throughout the neighborhood.  (This would occur more often in a commercial property owners association, or sometimes in a condominium or townhome situation – almost never in a single-family detached subdivision.) 

 If the subdivision has private roads which are maintained by the association, the same situation as described above with city or state roads might apply, so the association needs to make sure any catch basins or storm drains within its privately-maintained roads are properly maintained so that they are draining the roads as originally designed.  But again, the association did not design, approve, or construct the roads, so it generally cannot be held liable for inadequate design, but only for failing to reasonably and properly maintain those specific storm water management devices which are within its private roads, or any catch basins or similar devices it owns or maintains.  Storm water pipes, ditches, drains, and swales on individual lots generally do not fall within this area of responsibility.

Don't hesitate to contact us if we can assist your association, whether during rain or shine or sleet or dark of night!

Virus Check: What do Businesses Need to Know About COVID-19 Liability?

Virus Check: What is Your Liability as a Business?

The current situation we are facing is unprecedented from a legal standpoint. The ability to enforce contracts, loans, leases and all manner of legal relationships is now in question based on financial hardships as well as our court system working at greatly diminished capacity. Reasonableness, negotiation and working cooperatively are now more important than ever before.

Businesses of all types are concerned about being sued. What do you need to know?

Negligence is your first concern.Can a business be sued if an employee or customer were to contract a communicable disease at the employer’s workplace, or from a co-worker or customer? It depends on whether the business took reasonable actions to protect its employees and customers in light of the information available to it – in other words, whether the business was negligent.

Tort law, or the law of negligence, applies in this situation. It holds that a person can be liable to another person to whom the first person owes a duty if the first person commits an act which is unreasonable (or fails to take a reasonably necessary action) which could reasonably be anticipated to cause damage to the second person, and the second person did not help cause the wrongful act or omission.

For example, the Governor of North Carolina had previously prohibited all “mass gatherings” of 50 or more people (since reduced to 10); therefore, it was legal at that time (at least in most counties) to have mass gatherings of less than 50. But would this be reasonable in light of the CDC’s warnings against gatherings of more than 10 people? It depends on the situation, but a strong argument could be made that such would not be reasonable - in other words, we could not assure you that you would not get sued if someone got sick from such a gathering.

You owe a duty of reasonable care to your members, customers and employees; failure to take reasonable care to protect these parties from infection could result in liability. Reasonableness is the touchstone, based upon all the facts and circumstances involved. Failure to abide by local orders or regulations when they are directly intended to preserve public safety, as well as customary standards of care, have been held to constitute actionable negligence in other contexts. Cruise ship operators are already facing numerous lawsuits from those sickened while onboard based on this legal theory. Please contact us if we can help you work through liability issues of concern.

Workplace safety is also obviously very much in play today. In addition to the above negligence standards, workplaces of all types must abide by federal and state occupational health and safety requirements, typically as determined by OSHA. Employers must take efforts to maintain a hazard-free workplace, while still safeguarding the privacy rights of any affected employee.

OSHA requires that employers provide a safe workplace for all employees which is "free from recognized hazards … likely to cause death or serious bodily harm."

OSHA has not adopted specific regulations regarding COVID-19 in the general workplace at this time, but has instead recommended that employers follow CDC guidelines regarding personal safety, as well as any state or local guidelines or requirements - North Carolina's being found here.

The North Carolina Department of Labor, like OSHA, has not adopted specific regulations, but has emphasized the need to follow social distancing guidelines, maintain a clean workplace, and work from home where possible, and has emphasized the importance of proper personal protective equipment. Both the

NC Department of Labor and OSHA have especially emphasized worker safety with regard to respiration - in other words, being sure workers working with the public wear face masks, or more intensive respirators for those in healthcare, janitorial staff working with hazardous cleaning materials, and the like.

OSHA’s "free from recognized hazards" standard places much discretion in the hands of federal and state regulators if they feel an employer has not taken all reasonable steps to provide a hazard-free workplace for its employees. To be safe, employers should also implement procedures designed to promptly identify and isolate potentially infectious workers, per OSHA guidance. Illness or potential illness by employee must be kept confidential to the extent possible per federal ADA requirements; contact us if you run into this issue.

Contract law and force majeure clauses. Many contracts contain a force majeure clause, which translates from French as “superior force.”  It refers to uncontrollable events that are not the fault of any party and which interfere with a party’s ability to complete its end of the bargain or receive what it bargained for in the deal. Common examples are hurricanes, riots, labor stoppages and war. At first blush, it would appear that a pandemic would constitute a force majeure, but the terms of the contract control. You must review the specific language of the contract in question. Language such as “circumstances outside our control” is very broad and will cover the current situation and allow the party benefited by the provision to avoid the contract.  More specific language such as the common “acts of God, war, insurrection, civil strife, riots or labor disturbances” may not be as helpful depending since the list arguably excludes pandemics. If you are facing language which may not cover the current situation, you may have to negotiate and reach an agreement with your opposing party. If you do so, please, please document the agreement. Obviously, we can help. But even an exchange of emails can be sufficient to amend a contract if both parties agree.

Common law force majeure, or the doctrine of impossibility, may also apply if it is impossible or illegal for the parties to carry out the purpose and intent of the contract. Send your contract to us for review if you have issues or concerns. If upon reviewing your contracts, you find provisions which do not suit your needs in the current climate, do not forget that you may amend the current contract or at least change it going forward.  We can quickly supply you with alternative language and have already done so for some of our business clients.

Coronavirus/COVID-19 Updates for Businesses and Community Associations

Coronavirus/COVID-19 Updates for Businesses and Community Associations

The coronavirus situation is changing rapidly and each change has the potential to affect your business dramatically. Gatherings of 50 people or more are now prohibited statewide as of March 23, and the Mecklenburg County health director on March 24 instituted a stay-at-home order (although many business are deemed essential by the order and therefore are exempt.) How is your business affected? Because the COVID-19 situation is rapidly evolving, businesses must stay informed. Your course of action may be governed by focusing on employee morale or health, a desire to slow the epidemic, a need to address customer demands, public perception, and other imperatives. Your response will also vary depending upon your type of industry such as service or manufacturing.  In this article, Moretz Law Group addresses several areas of law and stakeholder groups that are most heavily impacted by the pandemic response.

New Employee Leave Laws – The Families First Coronavirus Response Act ("FFCRA") has become law and takes effect April 2. What do you need to know as an employer?

·         Applies to all private employers with 500 or less employees. Note that this is much broader than the FMLA, which excludes employers of 50 or less employees.

·         Adds “Emergency Paid Sick Leave” (a new mandate) and “Emergency Family and Medical Leave” (an enhancement to currently-required FMLA leave.)

·         Emergency Family and Medical Leave: Expands the FMLA to require paid leave for employees who are unable to work (including working from home) because they have or may have COVID-19 or are seeking a medical diagnosis, or who must stay home to care for such a person, or who must stay home to care for children whose school has been cancelled due to coronavirus concerns.

o   Employee must have been employed for at least 30 days.

o   Only applies when the employee cannot work from home or at the office.

o   The first 10 days are unpaid, but the employee can use paid time off if the employer offers it; maximum period, as with the FMLA, is 12 weeks.

o   After the initial 10 days, the employee must receive pay at a rate at least 2/3 their regular pay, not to exceed $200 per day or $10,000 total.

o   The employer will be reimbursed by the federal government by a quarterly credit to the employer’s payroll tax liability, including the employer’s share of any health insurance premiums if any.

·         Emergency Paid Sick Leave: Requires paid sick leave for employees who are unable to work (including working from home) because they have or may have COVID-19 or are seeking a medical diagnosis, or who must stay home to care for such a person, or who must stay home to care for children whose school has been cancelled due to coronavirus concerns

o   All employees are covered even if just hired.

o   Only applies when the employee cannot work from home or at the office.

o   Two weeks of paid time off in which the employee must receive pay at a rate at least 2/3 their regular pay, not to exceed $200 per day or $10,000 total.

o   Employee cannot be required to use other PTO first.

o   Does not apply where the employee is laid off, furloughed, or the business closes – in those cases, the new stronger unemployment insurance should apply.

o   The employer will be reimbursed by the federal government by a quarterly credit to the employer’s payroll tax liability for the full amount paid to the employee, including the employer’s share of any health insurance premiums if any.

Public Health Law and Stay-At-Home Orders - On March 10, Governor Roy Cooper declared the a state of emergency in North Carolina due to the COVID-19.  NC G.S Chapter. 166A-19.3(6) defines an emergency as “[a]n occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury or loss of life or property resulting from any … public health, … incident.”  This declaration increased funding to address COVID-19 (e.g. monitoring, investigating, testing, disinfecting) and kicked in some of the consumer protections laws (for example, against price gouging).  The laws clearly outline who has the authority to take specific actions to protect the public by cancelling events, closing schools and other facilities, and restricting the movement of individuals.  Public health law allows county health directors to take very wide-ranging steps to protect public health. The steps taken so far, including today’s lockdown in Mecklenburg County through April 16, appear initially severe, but there are often helpful exceptions. For example, many businesses are excluded from that order as “essential” – please review the FAQ information carefully, especially the list of essential services on page 3, and determine if your business is excluded.

Negligence – While too complex to fully discuss here, we are being asked whether a business could be sued if an employee or customer were to contract a communicable disease at the employer’s workplace, or from a co-worker or customer. It depends on whether the business took reasonable actions to protect its employees and customers in light of the information available to it – in others words, whether the business was negligent. Tort law, or the law of negligence, applies in this situation. It holds that a person can be liable to another person to whom the first person owes a duty if the first person commits an act which is unreasonable (or fails to take a reasonably necessary action) which could reasonably be anticipated to cause damage to the second person, and the second person did not help cause the wrongful act or omission. For example, the Governor has prohibited all “mass gatherings” or 50 or more people; therefore it is legal (at least in most counties, as of this writing) to have mass gatherings of less than 50. But would this be reasonable in light of the CDC’s warnings against gatherings of more than 10 people? It depends on the situation, but reasonableness is the touchstone given all the facts and circumstances involved. Failure to abide by local orders or regulations, when they are aimed at public safety, has been held to constitute negligence in the past. We can help by drafting waivers or releases, for example, if you do need to hold a gathering or are concerned about liabilities to employees or customers in the current situation. Don’t hesitate to call or email us.

Contract Law and Force Majeure Clauses – Many contracts contain a force majeure clause, which translates from French as “superior force.”  It refers to uncontrollable events that are not the fault of any party and which interfere with a party’s ability to complete its end of the bargain or receive what it bargained for in the deal. Common examples are hurricanes, riots, labor stoppages and war.  At first blush, it would appear that a pandemic would constitute a force majeure, but the terms of the contract control. You must review the specific language of the contract in question. Language such as “circumstances outside our control” is very broad and will cover the current situation and allow the party benefited by the provision to avoid the contract.  More specific language such as the common “acts of God, war, insurrection, civil strife, riots or labor disturbances” may not be as helpful depending since the list arguably excludes pandemics. Common law force majeure, or the doctrine of impossibility, may also apply if it is impossible or illegal for the parties to carry out the purpose and intent of the contract. Send you contract to us for review if you have issues or concerns. If upon reviewing your contracts, you find provisions which do not suit your needs in the current climate, do not forget that you may amend the current contract or at least change it going forward.  We can quickly supply you with alternative language and have already done so for some of business clients.

Insurance – Business Interruption Insurance, a type of property insurance, applies when a business is damaged from an insured peril (e.g. fire or flood) and the collateral damages such as decrease in orders/sales, loss of customers, employees leaving result.  Business interruption insurance protects against financial loss and allows businesses to insure its income. The application of Business Interruption Insurance to the pandemic is not clear in all cases.  Often an exclusion is written into an insurance contract.  For example, the ISO policy exclusion form CP 01 40 07/06 is frequently included in commercial insurance policies. It states, “We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus… that induces or is capable of inducing … illness or disease.”^[i]  Whether business interruption insurance applies, and what losses it may cover if it does apply, will vary from case to case.  For example, if a manufacturing plant closes down upon governmental order, coverage may be available as loss due to a competent authority’s denying access, rather than due to a virus capable of causing disease.  Statutes, executive orders, and the rulings of administrative agencies can affect the interpretation of contract language based on particular circumstances.  Please contact us if we can assist.  

Employment Law Issues

Employment law in the face of the COVID-19 is certainly wide-ranging and beyond the general scope of this update. We can provide specific advice for your particular issues, but typically concerns involve the Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers cannot take actions which might single out those with disabilities or which would require employees to disclose specific conditions which could potentially lead to discrimination, including being regarded as having a disability even if there is no actual disability. The questions we are hearing most often are:

• May employers monitor the health of employees at work?  Yes, but this must be done even-handedly and in the same manner for all employees. Employees may not be asked about pre-existing conditions or personal attributes which may make them more susceptible to the virus, but may be asked general questions applicable to all employees. See this guidance by the EEOC: https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/pandemic_flu.html

• How about monitoring asymptomatic employees? Yes, this can be done via questionnaire which is worded in a general manner. See the example on the EEOC website above.  

• Can an employee with a cough or other symptoms be sent home? Yes.

• If so, with or without pay? Whatever the employer’s specific policy is with regard to sick leave. North Carolina employers are not required to provide paid sick leave, but if your company does, any such leave should exhaust all PTO prior to becoming unpaid.

• How should an employer treat an employee who becomes infected or one who has been quarantined?  What measures should be taken in the workplace to avoid stigma?  Private, personal information of employees is required to be kept confidential pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-66 and other statutes.  All information and records which may identify a person who has or may have a disease required to be reported by the North Carolina Commission for Public Health must be strictly confidential. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-143. Therefore, any information that an employee may have tested positive for COVID-19 or any other communicable disease should be kept confidential.

• HIPAA, while generally not applicable to employers since they are not health care providers, does apply where employers have private personal medical information in their records. Such information is required to be maintained in a separate, locked file only accessible to those with a genuine need for it. Thus, such information cannot be disclosed formally or informally.

Of utmost importance, implement policies consistently and evenly among all employees.  Communicate your message frequently and before you communicate check the facts from reliable sources and check them again.  Consider issuing your company policies/directives in this growing situation in writing and as amendments to your company employee handbook.

Realtors – The NC Real Estate Commission has allowed 90 extra days to complete all continued ed, and all continuing ed must now be completed online or via webcast, not in person. See https://www.ncrec.gov/  More information also available from the NC Association of Realtors - see https://www.ncrealtors.org/nc-realtors-coronavirus-information/

Real Estate Transactions – Recording of deeds and other real estate documents is continuing electronically and we have in fact recorded a transaction just this morning electronically, which proceeded as normal with no significant delay from the Register of Deeds office. No in-person business can be conducted at the Register of Deeds office – call and make an appointment if you need a marriage license or your notary commission renewed, for example.

Legal Proceedings and Courthouses – Courthouses are still open but running on skeleton staffs. We are able to file lawsuits, motions, pleadings and the like, but no hearings will be held until the stay on all but emergency court hearings is lifted by the N.C. Supreme Court and the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts. This does not change or extend any statutes of limitations! In addition, any filings which were due between March 16 and April 17 have now been extended until close of business on April 17. The legal system is considered an “essential service” and is therefore not directly affected by Mecklenburg County’s stay-in-place order issued on March 24, 2020.  

Landlords, Homeowners Associations and Lenders – Your tenants, members and borrowers are still required to pay you and nothing is anticipated to change that at this time. Residential borrowers may receive special dispensation from the federal government but that is unlikely to apply to any private mortgage transactions. Lawsuits, liens and foreclosures may still be filed, but no hearings will be held until the stay on all but emergency court hearings is lifted by the N.C. Supreme Court and the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts. We can assist you in getting things filed so that matters can be immediately heard once the stay is lifted.

Homeowners and Condominium Associations – Annual meetings are likely to have to be postponed since most associations require these to be held in person. Board meetings can, and should, be held telephonically in the current situation – all directors must be able to hear each other for the meeting to be valid. No such allowances exist by law in North Carolina for annual membership meetings to be held electronically. Boards should be meeting regularly by teleconference to adjust and react to current events. (Contact us if you need a review of your governing documents to see if there are ways to accomplish meetings electronically or other than in person.) Regarding common areas, be sure to read the section about Negligence elsewhere in this article. There is now plenty of information available from the CDC and others for best practices in keeping common areas clean and avoiding personal contact to quell the spread of disease – disregarding them could constitute negligence, making the association liable.

Taxes - An delay from April 15 to July 15 was announced by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for federal income tax filing for all taxpayers and businesses. North Carolina has also extended its state tax filing deadline to the same date. No specific written guidelines or rules had been published at the time we wrote this update, so be sure to consult your CPA for further details before relying completely on this informal announcement at this time.

Breweries, Distilleries and Other ABC Licensees – The NC Alcoholic Beverage Commission has issued very specific rules in response to the Governor’s COVID-19 Executive Orders. These new rules need to be followed strictly in order to ensure that you are not both in violation of the Executive Orders – a class 2 misdemeanor – as well as putting your ABC license in jeopardy. See the ABC Commission announcement: https://abc.nc.gov/PublicResources/LegalAnnouncement/261

Unemployment Benefits – This is an important change which provides a streamlined process to access benefits for those newly unemployed or with reduced hours or wages. Employees should be sure to specify that they are temporarily out of work or working reduced hours due to COVID-19 when filing a claim to make sure they are eligible for any extra benefits and to ensure that the employer’s unemployment insurance account is not charged for these benefits. Employers should be sure to indicate that the separation was due to COVID-19 when/if they receive a request for separation information from the NC Employment Security Commission. Details here: https://des.nc.gov/need-help/COVID-19-information

Parties, Events and Mass Gatherings - On March 23, 2020 Governor Cooper issued new Executive Order No. 120 adding further restrictions to businesses and prohibiting all mass gatherings of 50 or more people - down from 100 or more previously. Read the Executive Orders here for details.

Briefly, the Governor's orders cancel public schools (K-12) until May 15 and prohibits mass gatherings of 50 or more until further notice. The prohibition of mass gatherings has specific definitions and is worthy of clarification.  These orders have the rule of law - violation constitutes a Class 2 misdemeanor pursuant to N.C.G.S. 14-288.204. There are more details on our website here.

Stay tuned for more legal updates from us on this continually evolving issue.

Resources for Businesses to Stay Informed:

·         https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/businesses-employers.html

·         https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf

·         https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/pandemic_flu.html

·         https://www.ncdhhs.gov/divisions/public-health/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-response-north-carolina/businesses-employers

·         https://abc.nc.gov/PublicResources/LegalAnnouncement/261

·         Read the Executive Orders here

·         https://des.nc.gov/need-help/COVID-19-information

·         https://www.mecknc.gov/news/Documents/COVID-19-Stay-at-Home-FAQ.pdf

·         https://www.mecknc.gov/news/Documents/COVID-19%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.pdf

·         https://www.cabarrushealth.org/555/Coronavirus-Information-Page

Moretz Law Group is prepared to help you with your business needs in this situation.  We are fortunate to have Marjorie Benbow as part of our firm due to her expertise in virology and public health.  Prior to receiving her J.D. and M.B.A degrees from Wake Forest, Marjorie received her Masters of Science in Public Health from UNC-Chapel Hill. She worked as a virologist at Burroughs Wellcome after finishing her coursework. She also worked for the state's health agency in the areas of epidemiology focusing on communicable diseases. Marjorie is also a registered patent attorney and assists our clients with trademarks and copyright matters as well as with brewery and distillery law. Marjorie can be reached here. Reach Zac Moretz here. Our coronavirus updates are here.

What if Fred and Barney lived in your HOA?

And what if Fred and Barney were goats? Fortunately for us, the Court of Appeals had occasion to address this burning issue recently in Steiner v. Windrow Estates HOA.

                                                                                                    

Mr. and Mrs. Steiner lived in Windrow Estates in southeast Mecklenburg County, and had as their beloved pets two “certified Nigerian Dwarf” goats named Fred and Barney. Of course, the CCRs prohibited “livestock”, as most do, although interestingly, they did allow horses as Windrow Estates is an equestrian community. The case turned on whether Fred and Barney were livestock, as the HOA contended, or household pets as the Steiners argued. The trial court had found in favor of the Steiners on summary judgment.

The drafter of these particular CCRs failed to define the word “livestock”. When that happens, courts typically look to determine the “ordinary meaning” of the word in question, which means they usually simply look it up in the dictionary. Here, the Court referred to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and determined that “livestock” are “farm animals kept for use or profit” whereas pets are “domesticated animal[s] kept for pleasure rather than utility.”

The Court set forth excerpts from Mrs. Steiner’s affidavit in lengthy and sympathetic detail. Mrs. Steiner had been diagnosed with health problems and her physician recommended pets to speed her recovery. After some research, she determined that Nigerian Dwarf goats made excellent pets and could also live comfortably with the horses that the Steiners already kept on their property. The goats were bought from an outfit (Peach Tree Farms in nearby Oakboro) that sells them solely as pets, she said, and they were neutered and don’t produce milk or meat, so they could not be used for profit. Mrs. Steiner also testified that the goats were “affectionate, gentle, and make great companions.” (Apparently these particular goats don’t eat everything they see like the garden-variety goats I am familiar with – especially the one that once ate my uncle’s dentures. But that is another story.)

Dwarf Nigerian Goat from Peach Tree Farms' website.

Mrs. Steiner also testified that the goats lived outside in the stable with the horses, which to me seems more suggestive of livestock than household pets, but the Court somewhat facilely glossed over this issue by stating that household pets don’t necessarily have to live inside the house to be considered pets.

As often is the case when a court chooses to quote liberally from the one side’s testimony in its opinion, the Court of Appeals decided in favor of the sympathetic plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Steiner, holding that Fred and Barney were indeed pets and upholding the decision of the Superior Court. But the bigger question is, why did the Court decide the way it did and what, if anything, can we learn from this opinion? I see at least three takeaways for HOAs:

The first and most obvious takeaway is that it is critically important to define terms in CCRs. Obviously, had the CCRs clearly stated that goats were included in the term “livestock”, it would have helped the HOA’s case, but most likely this wouldn’t have changed the outcome, because it appears that the goats in this case were in fact pets.

Second, the plaintiffs in this case came across very sympathetically, and since judges are people too, this was an important part of why the decision ended up the way it did. HOAs facing litigation should very carefully consider the relative sympathies of the parties involved before incurring the expense of protracted litigation, even if they feel the legalities are on their side. Don’t miss the forest for the trees when deciding whether litigation is warranted.

Finally, it is crucially important for HOAs to be aware that North Carolina courts look upon all CCRs with a jaundiced eye. The Court of Appeals spent a good portion of its opinion harping on this particular doctrine, summarizing it as follows:

“The law looks with disfavor upon covenants restricting the free use of property. As a consequence, the law declares that nothing can be read into a restrictive covenant enlarging its meaning beyond what its language plainly and unmistakably imports.”

This gave the Court the legal support it was looking for to read the term “livestock” very restrictively (even though the careful reader will note that the Merriam-Webster definition states that livestock includes “farm animals”, and I can’t imagine anyone arguing that goats are not generally considered farm animals) and to find in favor of plaintiffs it clearly found to be worthy of its support, even on summary judgment. In addition, and perhaps I am just being paranoid here, this allowed the Court to hand the HOA community another in a fairly consistent string of losses at the North Carolina appellate level on facts that seemingly could have gone either way.

The case is Steiner v. Windrow Estates Home Owners Association, Inc., 713 S.E.2d 518 (July 19, 2011). Read the full text of the opinion here: http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=MjAxMS8xMC04NjUtMS5wZGY=