Leasing Restrictions Georgia

Jane,

I am not sure what post you referred to but I know of a 2010 Arizona case that holds that CC&R’s may not be amended to become more restrictive or to add new burdens on the property owner.

The case, Dreamland Villa Community Club v. Raimey et al., arose from an amendment to the CC&R’s that added a requirement that all homeowners to pay dues for membership in a community club. The case is available online at http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2010/1%20CA-CV%2008-0388.PDF

The Arizona Court of Appeals adopted what they called the "'Lakeland line of cases' which disallowed amendments of restrictions that imposed substantial and unforeseeable impacts on lot owners."

The Lakeland line of cases includes:
Lakeland Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Larson, 459 N.E.2d 1164 (Ill. 1964);
Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Ass’n v. Caughlin Club, 849 P.2d 310 (Nev. 1993);
Boyles v. Hausmann, 517 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1994); and
Meresse v. Stelma, 999 P.2d 1267 (Wash. 2000).

See also the following cases that rely on the Lakeland line of case:
Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 633 S.E.2d 78 (N.C. 2006) and
Webb v. Mullikin, 142 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)

The Armstrong court determined the amendment to be {invalid and unenforceable," declaring that "[t]his court will not permit the Association to use the [d]eclaration’s amendment provision as a vehicle for imposing a new and different set of covenants, thereby substituting a new obligation for the original bargain of the covenanting parties."

In contrast is Evergreen Highlands Ass’n v. West, 73 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003). There, the court held that a newly-imposed fee for use of common areas was foreseeable in the original covenants.