Tips on case law research

I've noticed that some of the regulars here can very quickly respond to questions that include links to case law, pending lawsuits, etc. I am obviously doing something wrong because I struggle with doing this effectively. Simple examples that I would like to do is find anything related to parking issues, selective enforcement issues, invalid rules issues, etc, etc.

Does anyone have advice on what sites can be used? Are there search techniques that you use that would be helpful? If anyone has any advice/tips on this subject I would sure appreciate it.

John, I have fought the good fight on HOA parking issues for many years as a board member and home owner. There is so much content out there on the net on this topic that I cant really offer a particular site to you. Some good web search terms are: "HOA, lawsuit, parking, your state, guest parking, parking restrictions, etc..." If your state has an HOA related law, you will find what the state law says about it. There are usually some good law firms that present a lot of info as well on various hot HOA topics. Regardless, with the suggested search terms you should find a plethora of articles on state laws and websites that discuss the issues.

Just recently a Washington Post article came out on the issue in Virginia (below). Also, while older, I posted another article also out of Virginia that addresses similar parking issues. I suggest reading the comment section of the recent Post article for some interesting insights into community dynamics and how people can interpret the same law so differently.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/local-opinions/property-rights-are-under-fire-from-homeowners-associations/2019/03/28/b32a77da-476b-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1997/09/18/ashburn-farm-residents-sue-over-parking-plan/8e73371f-9259-48dd-91d6-0f294f3c6213/

Let's assume one's interest is selective enforcement of covenants in South Carolina. Here is an example of a typical path I use to proceed.

1.
Put the following in the google search engine:
"selective enforcement" "south carolina"
The quotation marks are important.

2.
The second hit that comes up appears to be a site dedicated to HOA chatter as follows:
http://communityassociationmanagement.com/c58-rules/c60-violations-and-enforcement/selective-ccr-enforcement/

The article at this site instantly references what it says is a South Carolina Supreme Court case: Palmetto Dunes v. Brown. But the authors provide no link to the case. There's a nice summary of what transpired in Palmetto Dunes v. Brown, but this is not good enough for, ya know, some of the sticklers around here. No problem; keep reading.

3.
Google:
"palmetto dunes" "brown" site:justia.com
justia.com has a lot of case law and is one of my favorites. Other sites are also dedicated to providing access to case law for free. Attorneys pay big bucks for subscriptions to more sophisticated libraries of case law.

4.
The first hit is this:
https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/1985/287-s-c-1-2.html
It sure looks like what the article was referencing, except for two things:
(a) the suit is titled "Palmetto Dunes Resort v. Brown" at the justia.com site, unlike what the article referenced.
(b) justia.com so far indicates it is a state appeals court decision. The aforementioned article said the case was a state supreme court decision. What gives? Time to dig more.

5.
Justia.com also allows one to search a state's appeals court decisions and a state's supreme court decisions. E.g. see https://law.justia.com/south-carolina/
Here is what I put in the google search engine for first, South Carolina Supreme Court decisions and second, South Carolina Appeals Court decisions:
(a)
palmetto dunes brown site:https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/
No cases titled "Palmetto Dunes Resort v. Brown" came up.

(b)
palmetto brown https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/
The case came up. Based on the earlier, more general search, this was no surprise.

6.
But can one be certain that this case was not appealed from the SC court of appeals to the SC Supreme Court, and so maybe justia.com's records are incomplete with regard to SC Supreme Court decisions? (In my experience and for the time period in question, justia.com's records are typically quite complete.) Still, to answer this with confidence, I would read the article linked above more carefully. If the description the article provides appears to match the appeals court decision at justia.com, then I probably found the right case. But let's do one more check.

7.
Google
"Supreme Court of South Carolina" "Palmetto Dunes Resort v. Brown"
The first hit is: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1329003/taylor-v-lindsey/ . I know courtlistener.com well. It too is a good resource for case law.
The courtlistener.com web site has a SC Supreme Court decision that cites, and links, a "Palmetto Dunes Resort v. Brown." When clicking on the link, the aforementioned appeals court decision comes up. From experience, I know that a state supreme court will not cite a lower appeals court unless the lower appeals court decision is the end of the line for the lawsuit, at least as far as appeals are concerned. Appeals are expensive, and the parties have already spent a pile of money by going to trial (which is different from an appeal). It is common for parties in a lawsuit either not to appeal at all or end their appeal at the appeals court level.

8.
At this point, I feel confident that I have found one of the leading cases in South Carolina on selective enforcement at HOAs. For the latest on the subject of selective enforcement, it would pay to see what other cases in South Carolina in subsequent years cited Palmetto Dunes Resort v. Brown. One can search the South Carolina appeals court and supreme court decisions as described above.

9.
Lastly, one may consider writing a good-natured email to the fine folks at http://communityassociationmanagement.com/ , stating:

Subject: Small Error in legal citation?

Dear Madam or Sir,

I could be mistaken, but I believe that your article at http://communityassociationmanagement.com/c58-rules/c60-violations-and-enforcement/selective-ccr-enforcement/ may have a small error. The article says Palmetto Dunes v. Brown was a South Carolina Supreme Court decision. But when I checked, I could only find a South Carolina Appeals Court decision titled, "Palmetto Dunes Resort v. Brown, 336 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. Ct. App. 1985)." Am I missing something?

Else your site has been enormously helpful to me as a HOA director.

Thanks you,

Jane Doe
President, Palmetto Dunes Resort, 1980-1986
"You violate a covenant, we nail you."

IMO, as you fill your head with case law, there's one important thing to keep in mind... the vast majority of issues/scenarios never see the courtroom. So you don't have to react to what you read in case law as "we'd better make sure to comply with that case law decision". You should probably filter it by first thinking "what are the chances of this ever going to court for our neighborhood?" And if it does go to court, what are the consequences really? And then weigh it appropriately.

Everything in life is a gamble, and trying to make it "not a gamble" often costs you much more than it's worth for that insurance. For example, Sunday Night movies "based on true stories" made mom's across America far more concerned/paranoid about kidnappers than was warranted, leading to "helicopter parenting" (where you are constantly hovering over your kids, lest you become a Sunday night movie).

The same concept applies here -- most of what you see in case law are "exceptional cases" .. that often < 1% which actually gets challenged in court.

As for us, our HOA is 26 years old, and board members have been guilty of PLENTY, but not once has anyone filed a lawsuit. The only lawsuits we've had is for common cookie-cutter dues collections. Period. 26 years, 100's actionable offenses, and not one went to court. Nothing happened. I think that is the norm for many HOA's.

I obtained proxies from 54% of our neighbors with no rosters or emails. It was 100% pure door knocking. Took me 30 hrs.

You keep incorrectly saying that we intend on "breaking the terms of a contract". The terms of our contract are clear - "after 20 years, it only requires 51% vote to approve terminations". If we want to terminate the ban on "wooden/shingled sheds", then by contract, this action only requires 51% vote. Since we are aiming for 9 terminations, we don't want to see any of these terminations go unapproved simply because folks mis-classify our actions as something more than a termination. They aren't. The net effect of each of these 9 proposals is to ONLY terminate existing restrictions; nothing more.

My comment above is extremely valid. It would be like saying "let me check to see if ANYONE in Indiana has received a speeding ticket for going 5 mph above the speed limit", and so I do a full legal search, and I find that there were "5 instances of speeding tickets issued for 5 mph, in the past 5 years", and so I say "woah, I don't want to get caught in THAT trap! I'm never going to go 5 mph over the speed limit."

There are 350,000 HOA's in the USA now. A good many of them are breaking rules/laws (I know ours was guilty of many blatant ones). Yet 99.99% of these offenses probably go unchallenged, despite people complaining. There exists a huge chasm between "complaining" (easy to do, makes you feel better) and "filing a lawsuit" (costs money, takes time, and incurs permanent irreversible damage to the HOA or neighbors). Only a scant few of the offenses are challenged in court via a lawsuit.

So as we decide how to proceed with HOA mgmt and are trying to assess risks - you should always take into the account:
1. Likelihood of something bad happening
2. Consequence if it does happen.

And multiply those two together to get a general feel for how much weight you should place on the concern.

This is a standard engineering process, so that engineers can decide where to spend their time. This method for decision-making applies to HOA mgmt as well.