Title: Zinone v. Lee's Crossing Homeowners Ass'n

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Kinser, C.J, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and 
Koontz, S.J. 
 
LINZIE ZINONE 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 101085 
SENIOR JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. 
 
 
 
September 16, 2011 
LEE'S CROSSING HOMEOWNERS 
 ASSOCIATION, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY 
Thomas B. Horne, Judge 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether certain provisions of 
the Virginia Property Owners' Association Act ("POAA"), Code 
§§ 55-508 through -516.2, restrict the declarant of a recorded 
declaration creating a property owners' association from 
unilaterally amending that declaration under its express term 
providing for such authority.  The issue, which presents a 
purely legal question of statutory construction, was decided in 
the circuit court upon cross motions for partial summary 
judgment based on the pleadings.  Accordingly, we will review 
the judgment under a de novo standard.  Addison v. Jurgelsky, 
281 Va. 205, 208, 704 S.E.2d 402, 404 (2011); Conger v. Barrett, 
280 Va. 627, 630, 702 S.E.2d 117, 118 (2010). 
BACKGROUND 
The material facts are not in dispute.  Lee's Crossing is a 
residential subdivision in Loudoun County created in 1999 and is 
subject to a Declaration of Protective Covenants ("the 
Declaration") recorded in the County's land records by the 
 
2 
Merritt Family Limited Partnership I, the developer of the 
subdivision, and Jack H. Merritt, Jr., the general partner 
(collectively, "Merritt").  The Declaration created Lee's 
Crossing Homeowners Association ("the Association") for the 
Lee's Crossing subdivision subject to the provisions of the 
POAA.  Linzie Zinone owns property within the Lee's Crossing 
subdivision and, thus, is a member of the Association. 
As relevant to this appeal, section 17(i) of the 
Declaration provided:1 
Amendments.  These Covenants may be modified or 
amended upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
membership of the Association.  Declarant reserves the 
right to unilaterally amend this Declaration anytime 
within two years of the recordation of this 
Declaration. 
Pursuant to this provision of the Declaration, Merritt made 
numerous unilateral amendments to the Declaration between 1999 
and 2004, including several which extended the period of time 
during which unilateral amendments by the declarant would be 
permitted. 
In an amended complaint filed April 24, 2009 in the Circuit 
Court of Loudoun County, Zinone sought declaratory and 
injunctive relief and an award of monetary damages against the 
                     
1 The comparable provision appearing in the most recent 
version of the Declaration (the Corrected Third Amended and 
Restated Declaration of Protective Covenants, dated October 14, 
2004) is set out in section 17(h). 
 
 
3 
Association and Merritt.  Zinone alleged that the Association 
had "perpetrated" the "misuse of power and other ineffective and 
unlawful activities" by permitting Merritt to exercise authority 
under the Declaration to unilaterally amend its provisions to 
the detriment of the individual property owners within Lee's 
Crossing.  Zinone contended that Merritt had made multiple, 
unilateral amendments to the Declaration that, among other 
things, impacted architectural controls on the individual 
property owners and the assessment of regular fees and fines 
collected by the Association, including fines imposed on Zinone 
for alleged violations of the Declaration as amended by Merritt. 
Zinone did not expressly reference the application of the 
POAA in her amended complaint.  However, in a supplemental bill 
of particulars, she asserted that the unilateral amendment 
provision of section 17(i) of the Declaration was in conflict 
with Code § 55-515.1(D), which she asserted required that any 
amendment to a declaration be approved by a two-thirds vote of 
the property owners.  Moreover, she maintained that the POAA 
provided that a unilateral amendment of a declaration by a 
declarant was allowed only under the limited circumstances 
provided for in Code § 55-515.2(F), which she maintained did not 
apply to any of the amendments made by Merritt.  Ultimately, it 
was the application of these two provisions of the POAA which 
 
4 
became the focus of the parties and the circuit court in the 
resolution of the parties' dispute. 
Merritt and the Association filed motions for partial 
summary judgment, asserting identical arguments that Code §§ 55-
515.1(D), -515.1(F), and -515.2(F) did not bar a declarant from 
providing in a declaration the power to unilaterally amend the 
declaration.  Rather, they contended that these provisions of 
the POAA merely provided ancillary and supplemental rights 
allowing for amendment of a declaration in the absence of an 
express, less restrictive manner of amendment within the 
declaration.2 
Zinone also filed a motion for partial summary judgment in 
which she contended that Code § 55-515.1(D) was a mandatory 
limitation on the power of a declarant or a property owners' 
association to amend a declaration except by a two-thirds vote 
of the membership.  Zinone further contended that Dogwood Valley 
Citizens Association, Inc. v. Shifflett, 275 Va. 197, 203-04, 
654 S.E.2d 894, 897 (2008), supported her interpretation of Code 
§ 55-515.1(D), asserting that the case stood for the proposition 
                     
2 The Association further contended that Zinone's action was 
time-barred under Code § 55-515.1(E).  The circuit court had 
previously overruled Merritt's and the Association's pleas in 
bar asserting the application of Code § 55-515.1(E) and did not 
expressly rule on this aspect of the Association's motion for 
summary judgment.  Although both the Association and Merritt 
have reasserted the issue of whether the action was time-barred 
in this appeal, the issue is waived. 
 
5 
that the only exception to the two-thirds vote requirement 
allowing for unilateral amendment of a declaration was under the 
"limited circumstances" set out in Code § 55-515.2(F). 
The circuit court conducted a hearing on the cross-motions 
for partial summary judgment on March 9, 2010.  At the 
conclusion of the hearing, after receiving argument in accord 
with the parties' positions as stated in their motions and 
supporting memoranda, the court entered an order sustaining 
Merritt's and the Association's motions with respect to their 
interpretation of Code § 55-515.1(D), and overruling Zinone's 
motion.  Thereafter, Zinone took a nonsuit to the remaining 
personal claims against Mr. Merritt.  This appeal followed. 
DISCUSSION 
Zinone has made five assignments of error to the judgment 
of the circuit court.  However, the substance of her argument, 
essentially identical to that made in the circuit court, is that 
the provision for unilateral amendment of the Declaration 
contained in section 17(i) is inconsistent with Code §§ 55-
515.1(D) and -515.2(F), and that the plain language of the POAA 
and our decision in Dogwood Valley Citizens Ass'n establish that 
a declaration can only be amended as provided for in the POAA.   
 
6 
Code § 55-515.1(D) was added to the POAA effective July 1, 
1999,3 and provides that:  
[a] declaration may be amended by a two-thirds vote of 
the owners.  This subsection may be applied to an 
association subject to a declaration recorded prior to 
July 1, 1999, if the declaration is silent on how it 
may be amended or upon the amendment of that 
declaration in accordance with its requirements. 
Code § 55-515.2(F), as effective July 1, 1998,4 provides in 
relevant part: 
The declarant may unilaterally execute and record 
a corrective amendment or supplement to the 
declaration to correct a mathematical mistake, an 
inconsistency or a scrivener's error, or clarify an 
ambiguity in the declaration with respect to an 
objectively verifiable fact (including without 
limitation recalculating the liability for assessments 
or the number of votes in the association appertaining 
to a lot) . . . . 
Zinone notes that the Declaration at issue in this case was 
recorded just prior to July 1, 1999.  She contends that a proper 
reading of Code § 55-515.1(D) shows that the legislature 
intended for the two-thirds vote requirement to be applicable to 
all property owners' associations subject to the POAA as a 
mandatory constraint on the ability to amend a declaration.  
According to Zinone, this is so because the 1999 amendment to 
Code § 55-515.1(D) applies to declarations existing at the time 
of its adoption that are "silent on how [they] may be amended or 
                     
3 See 1999 Acts ch. 805. 
 
7 
upon the amendment of [the] declaration in accordance with [Code 
§ 55-515.1(D)'s] requirements."  Accordingly, she contends that 
while the first sentence of section 17(i) of the Declaration is 
in accord with the POAA, the second sentence, providing for an 
unlimited power of unilateral amendment by the declarant, is 
not. 
Zinone further contends that her interpretation of Code 
§ 55-515.1(D) is supported by Code § 55-515.2(F) and our 
discussion of its application in Dogwood Valley Citizens Ass'n.  
She maintains that Code § 55-515.2(F), which predates Code § 55-
515.1(D), evinces a legislative intent to limit the ability of a 
declarant to unilaterally amend a declaration to the 
circumstances specified in that subsection.  Zinone finds 
support for this contention in our statement in Dogwood Valley 
Citizens Ass'n that "the POAA allows unilateral action in only 
limited circumstances."  275 Va. at 204, 654 S.E.2d at 897. 
Merritt and the Association, along with Home Builders 
Association of Virginia, an amicus curiae appearing in support 
of their position, contend that Zinone is misreading Code §§ 55-
515.1(D) and -515.2(F) as providing mandatory limitations on the 
power to amend a declaration creating a property owners' 
association.  Rather, they maintain that the circuit court 
                                                                  
4 Code § 55-515.2(F) was the subject of a corrective 
amendment in 2001, and the text given here reflects that 
 
8 
correctly interpreted these statutes as providing ancillary or 
supplemental means for amending such a declaration.  They assert 
that nothing in the POAA prohibits a declarant from making 
express provisions in a declaration for a different manner of 
amending the declaration.  We agree. 
To determine the legislative intent underpinning the 
POAA's provisions concerning the manner for amending a 
declaration, it is instructive to look at the closely-related 
provisions of the Condominium Act, Code §§ 55-79.39 through -
79.103, which provide for the amendment of a condominium 
instrument.  Code § 55-79.71(B) provides in relevant part: 
the condominium instruments shall be amended only by 
agreement of unit owners of units to which two-thirds 
of the votes in the unit owners' association 
appertain, or such larger majority as the condominium 
instruments may specify, except in cases for which 
this chapter provides different methods of amendment. 
(Emphasis added.) 
Compare this language with the provision of Code § 55-
515.1(D) that "[a] declaration may be amended by a two-thirds 
vote of the owners."  (Emphasis added.)  It is clear that in 
Code § 55-79.71(B) the legislature chose to use the mandatory 
and directive term "shall," while in Code § 55-515.1(D) it used 
the permissive term "may."  Moreover, Code § 55-515.1(D) does 
not contain any language equivalent to the further provision 
                                                                  
correction.  2001 Acts ch. 271. 
 
9 
found in Code § 55-79.71(B) that permits a condominium 
instrument to include a more restrictive limitation on the power 
to amend by only a greater majority of the unit owners.  Nor did 
the legislature make any provision in Code § 55-515.1(D), as it 
did in Code § 55-79.71(B), for "different methods of amendment" 
to be provided for elsewhere in the chapter. 
"We look to the plain meaning of the statutory language, 
and presume that the legislature chose, with care, the words it 
used when it enacted the relevant statute."  Addison, 281 Va. at 
208, 704 S.E.2d at 404 (citation and internal quotation marks 
omitted).  Moreover, when the General Assembly has used specific 
language in one instance, but omits that language or uses 
different language when addressing a similar subject elsewhere 
in the Code, we must presume that the difference in the choice 
of language was intentional.  See, e.g., Hollingsworth v. 
Norfolk Southern Railway, 279 Va. 360, 366-67 & n.2, 689 S.E.2d 
651, 654-55 & n.2 (2010); Halifax Corp. v. First Union National 
Bank, 262 Va. 91, 100, 546 S.E.2d 696, 702 (2001). 
Both the POAA and the Condominium Act were enacted to 
establish the duties of developers and to protect the rights of 
owners of residential property in subdivisions and condominiums 
respectively.  However, it is self-evident that the differences 
between a subdivision consisting of individual family dwellings 
and a condominium consisting of individual ownership of living 
 
10 
units in a multi-unit structure, required the legislature to 
treat the two entities differently, placing greater restrictions 
on the governance of the latter, and giving more flexibility to 
the governance of the former.  Comparing these two statutory 
schemes, we conclude that the plain language of the provisions 
of the POAA concerning the ability to amend a declaration are 
neither mandatory nor exclusive and, thus, can be controlled by 
the express provisions of a particular declaration.  In this 
case, the Declaration does exactly that, by providing that the 
covenants set forth in the Declaration can be amended by the 
Association "upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
membership [thereof]" or by the Declarant "unilaterally . . . 
anytime" within the time limit specified in the Declaration. 
Finally, we do not agree with Zinone that our decision in 
Dogwood Valley Citizens Ass'n is in conflict with this 
interpretation of the POAA.  The issue in Dogwood Valley 
Citizens Ass'n was whether the instrument in question was a 
valid declaration creating a property owners' association in 
accord with the POAA.  275 Va. at 200, 654 S.E.2d at 895.  
Within that context, the statement that the "POAA allows 
unilateral action in only limited circumstances" merely 
demonstrated the point that the instrument was not a valid 
declaration because "nothing in the POAA supports the 
proposition that the unilateral filing of a document without 
 
11 
notice and concurrence of the lot owners can impose upon real 
property and subject owners of that property to conditions not 
included in a deed of dedication or by a properly adopted 
amendment to such deed."  Id. at 204, 654 S.E.2d at 897.  The 
question whether the amendment provisions of the POAA were 
mandatory and exclusive was not at issue in Dogwood Valley 
Citizens Ass'n. 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, we hold that the circuit court did not 
err in concluding that section 17(i) of the Lee's Crossing 
Homeowners Association Declaration was not inconsistent with the 
provisions of the POAA.  Accordingly, the judgment of the 
circuit court will be affirmed. 
Affirmed.