In a ruling, the state Supreme Court says homeowners aren’t beholden to local covenants that aren’t meaningfully enforced.
This comes after a case from Summerset was appealed all the way to the highest court in South Dakota.
In this context, a “covenant” is a contract between a homeowner’s association or similar entity and the individual lot owners regulating matters like construction.
In Summerset, a suburb of Rapid City, the Straatmeyer family planned to build a three-car garage within 40 feet of their property line on their new property.
That drew the attention of the neighborhood, which saw 18 residents cite the local homeowners covenant from the 1970s in an attempt to stop the construction project before the family moved in.
However, questions were soon being asked about the makeup of other homes in the area as the family filed a countersuit. Namely, the location of and size of additions like sheds and garages.
In the unanimous ruling, Justice Scott Myren writes that to bring every home into compliance with this covenant would be quote “impractical and harmful.”
When the dust settled, the covenant was declared void by the Supreme Court which described the breaking of its terms as both widespread and unpunished.
Ultimately, the ruling mandates a degree of meaningful enforcement for homeowner’s association in South Dakota across the board, rendering it unfair to individually target any one family.
The state Supreme Court is now preparing for its next term of court. That will be held in Spearfish this week.