HOA Covenant Interpretaion: Trees

Our HOA covenant was put into place decades ago in our Hilltop Terrace neighborhood on Whidbey Island WA to create rules to protect homeowner's views, primarily.

Our HOA covenant article 4. on Trees reads: "No trees, except original growth trees on the property at the time of recording of plat, shall be allowed to grow more than 18 ft in height, unless such trees do not impede the view of any other homeowner".

My wife & I interpret this article text as: our next-door neighbor can plant trees anywhere on his property and allow said trees to grow to 18 ft max, unless they impede our view, where then they'll have to be trimmed back as to not impede our view, even if that is well below 18 ft.

Our 3-person HOA board interprets this article text as: our next-door neighbor can plant trees anywhere on his property and allow said trees to grow to 18 ft max, even if they partially or fully impede our view.

(To note: per our HOA covenant, there is a 15 ft height restriction on houses in our neighborhood, also to help protect views, so any newly planted trees allowed to grow to 18 ft would be 3 ft higher than houses can be)

We feel our HOA board is clearly misinterpreting our covenant text of article 4. on Trees, as the primary purpose of our particular HOA covenant is to make sure all homeowner views are maintained & not impeded.

Thank you for your help -

A lot of covenants are vague and open to interpretation but this one is very clear and your HOA is correct.

It states very clearly that no trees can be more than 18 feet but it makes an exception to the rule if they DO NOT impede another homeowner's view. There is no exception if it DOES block someone's view.

So, all trees can be 18 feet tall but, if they do not block another homeowner's view, there is no limit.

I don't think the height of houses is relevant.

-- It is the "do not" in the "do not impede" phrase that caused me to interpret the covenant as I did. If the "do not" were taken out, then I would see it as you (the OP) do.

-- I disagree with your 3-person Board's interpretation as well.

-- If the general plan for the HOA indicates it was established to have homes with amazing views, et cetera, then this will weigh in your favor. Courts look at context. In particular, the court will consider the overall plan for the HOA as conveyed in the HOA's governing documents.

-- If a court found the covenant ambiguous, then it would be obliged to interpret the ambiguity in favor of "free enjoyment of the land" and against the author of the governing documents. Here it is not clear who has more of a right to "free enjoyment": You or your neighbor.

-- Disputes over view-blocking are common. I think it would be worth your time to look at the case law on this and get a little more informed about how the courts think about this issue. justia.com is a good site for same. With a little effort, you can narrow your search of Justia to look only at Washington case law.

-- Sorry for this. In my experience, it is the stuff of tension, that will drain, for months to come.

Check your documents in another section about views. We have a separate section about not impeding views and there is a view easement.

Marco,

To me, any tree can grow to a height of 18feet.
Trees not on the property when purchased can grow more then 18 feet providing they do not impede views.
Those that do, must be capped at 18 feet.

As you can see, there can be different interpretations of the language used.
To determine which interpretation is correct, you will need to argue in front of a court for a ruling.
The other option is to get a compromise by talking to your neighbor.