Stay Out of My Tiki Hut! Court of Appeals Explores Extent of Access Easements in Recent Case

The Fiorentino home as seen from the street,
with the beach access boardwalk.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an entertaining decision in Sea Watch at Kure Beach Homeowners' Association v. Fiorentino in November 2019.  In this case, a developer of a seaside residential community had reserved an access easement across a homeowner's lot, Lot 6, for other residents to access the beach.  Eventually, the access area was expanded to include not only a wooden boardwalk, but also a deck area, bathrooms, and a tiki bar.  After these improvements had been in place and in use for approximately 10 years, a homeowner who bought Lot 6 demanded that the improvements be removed and the easement area returned to its original documented use as set forth in the easement agreement for access to the beach only.  The homeowners association eventually filed suit and requested a declaratory judgment, which is a request for the court to declare the respective rights and obligations of the various parties.

The Fiorentino home in question is at top in this picture with what admittedly looks like a pretty large tiki hut on the walkway between the two homes shown.

             After a Superior Court trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the HOA and dismissed the counterclaims of the owner of Lot 6. The court stated that the improvements were allowed to remain, and the association was allowed to continue to use of the deck, bathrooms and tiki bar even though the written easement agreement only provided for an access easement.

            The trial court analyzed the history of the use of this area and made the legal determination that an "access easement" "is not merely one of ingress and egress; public representations made by the developer expanded the easement to one involving use of the improvements" as well.  The court seemed to also feel that it was important that the improvements had been in use for a substantial period of time and in fact, it appeared that the owners of  Lot 6 had had the use of them along with all of the other homeowners in the community for about 5 years, which was the amount of time that the owners of Lot 6 had lived in the neighborhood prior to purchasing Lot 6.

            This case is important for a couple of reasons.  First of all, it underlines the need for easements and other similar documents to be very specific as to the use which is intended by the original parties.  In this case, the court refused to interpret the phrase "access easement” strictly and ruled that an access easement could include the use of these types of pretty significant improvements since the easement document itself provided no specific limitations on what was meant by "access".  Homeowners associations, developers, and others entering into easements or placing restrictions on land should be explicit in describing what their intentions are in entering into the agreement as well as very specifically describing the various rights and duties granted in the document itself.

            In addition, the court found it important that the tiki bar and other improvements had been in existence for approximately 10 years  and were apparently well known to the Lot 6 owners even before they purchased Lot 6.  This brings up a couple of other important points.  The doctrine of estoppel is very important in understanding contract law and homeowners association law.  This is the doctrine of the enforcement of reasonable expectations between contracting parties.  In this case, the Lot 6 owners had purchased Lot 6 well knowing of the existence of these substantial improvements and therefore, the court found that they were estopped from later complaining about them. Estoppel is a key legal concept which prevents a party from reneging upon an expectation it reasonably induces in another party to the bargain.

            This decision also highlights that real property purchases are almost always a "buyer beware" transaction.  Notwithstanding the fact that sellers in North Carolina are required to fill out lengthy disclosures in residential real estate transactions, the law of the state of North Carolina with regard to the purchase of residential property is generally very buyer adverse. In other words, it is very difficult to sue a seller, or in this case a third party developer, for any condition on a piece of land which the buyer was aware of, or should have been aware of, or could have discovered using reasonable due diligence. Generally, even if the seller completely lies in a real property disclosure, that lie will not be actionable unless there is no way the buyer could have detected the true state of the property using reasonable due diligence prior to closing.  This decision further exemplifies the rule that a buyer generally buys property subject to any and all conditions that they could have reasonably discovered prior to closing.

            Please reach out to us if we can assist your homeowners association with any legal matters, or if you are a developer who prefers to stay out of court!

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.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals Says… Not Much in its Recent HOA Cases

As homeowners’ association and commercial real estate attorneys, we typically hold our breath when the North Carolina Court of Appeals issues new opinions (“opinions” is the term it uses to refer to its case decisions). While the judges are all smart, accomplished and well-meaning former attorneys, most are former litigators who unfortunately have little if any real estate or community association law experience.

For this reason, they seem to miss the point or simply get it wrong in a lot of the cases they hear involving real estate or HOA issues. In the most recent HOA cases, they have said very little, so in our mind that’s a small positive – at least they did not make something up or get something wrong altogether.

In the interest of keeping you up to date, and because there are still some "teachable moments" involved, we’ll review them anyway. The cases are Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Association, Inc. and Kimler v. The Crossings at Sugar Hill Property Owner’s Association, Inc. 

Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Association, Inc.

The only exciting thing about the Radcliffe case is its facts. The Avenel HOA is an upscale community located in Wilmington. If you think that you have bad neighbors, then you should read the allegations of Ms. Radcliffe in this case to feel much better about your circumstances.

Entry to Avenel HOA

Allegedly, members of the HOA’s board of directors made it their personal missions in life to cause Ms. Radcliffe to move out of the neighborhood.  Not only that, but they also tried their hardest to derail her career in the local Methodist Church. According to the Court’s opinion, their alleged reign of terror included threatening her, chasing her, assaulting her, and driving their cars at her. Her lawsuit was a textbook case for the legal cause of action known as “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,” which involves a victim being subject to actions that no person living in a civilized society should have to endure.

The legal issue in the case affecting HOAs was whether the HOA corporation could be liable on these claims, or whether they were only the responsibility of the individual defendants and board members who performed these acts. Could their individual misdeeds be ascribed to the HOA?

The Court ruled that Ms. Radcliffe’s causes of action against the HOA were barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to these types of claims, and for that reason the Court did not explore the extent to which the individual defendants’ egregious actions were attributable to the HOA corporation, which actually would have been interesting had the Court gotten to it.

To what extent an HOA is responsible for the actions of board members is interesting legally because, generally, a company is liable for the actions of its employees and officers which are made in the course and scope of their duties. And in the case of an HOA, the HOA’s insurance will usually come in and defend a case brought against the HOA and/or its officers. But certain types of egregious actions, like fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or overtly criminal acts, are typically held to be outside the course and scope of an officer’s or employee’s duties, since they are not usually part of the job description. Therefore, those types of actions usually are not ascribed to the HOA itself, the HOA would not be liable for them, and the HOA’s insurance often will not step in to defend the HOA or the individuals at fault. But the HOA could be responsible if it is found to have permitted, encouraged or facilitated such bad behavior.

Bottom line: Unless you want to find out exactly which bad actions your HOA can be held legally responsible for, and to do so potentially on your own dime with no insurance coverage, try to be nice to the members of your HOA, and don’t let board members treat members disrespectfully. Unpredictable, irresponsible or offensive people should not serve on an HOA board or committee.

Kimler v. The Crossings at Sugar Hill Property Owner’s Association, Inc.

The Kimler case dealt with the issue of amendments to a community’s declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions. The original CCRs here were filed in 1996 and they did not include a provision that allowed the documents to be amended by anyone but the declarant. Since the HOA was created prior to the Planned Community Act (which became effective January 1, 1999), the question arose as to how the CCRs could be amended by the members.

The most intriguing thing about this case is the fact that it made it all the way to the Court of Appeals in the first place, because all of the questions that it presented can be answered by reading the statutes. Section1-102 of the Planned Community Act states that certain provisions of it apply to all HOAs, even communities that were created prior to 1999. One of these provisions is Section 2-117, which allows declarations to be amended by a vote of 67% or more of the lot owners in the community, “unless the Declaration or the Articles of Incorporation expressly provide otherwise.” 

The Court ruled that because The Crossings at Sugar Hill’s CCRs were silent altogether as to any amendment process, they did not “expressly provide otherwise”; therefore, the Planned Community Act provisions applied and the members could amend the CCRs with a 67% vote.

Bottom line: Silence in CCRs as to a particular issue will not be construed in the negative. The provisions of the Planned Community Act which specifically apply to all HOAs, even those created prior to January 1, 1999, will apply when CCRs are silent as to a particular issue.

Please give us a call or drop us an email if our HOA law team can assist your HOA or management company with interpretation of your HOA’s governing documents, or if we can be of assistance in any other way regarding legal issues facing your community. Please be aware that we represent HOAs only – we do not represent homeowners in disputes against their HOAs. We appreciate your reading our HOA law blog and encourage you to share it with others who may be interested. Thank you!