Opinion ID: 2585492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Zito Line of Cases

Text: Despite the fact that the Lakeland reasoning has been followed by other courts as recently as 2000, the same court that decided Lakeland issued a contrary opinion in 1992 with little explanation. [4] In Zito v. Gerken, 225 Ill.App.3d 79, 167 Ill.Dec. 433, 587 N.E.2d 1048 (1992), existing subdivision covenants granted the homeowners association the authority to modify the covenants, although the exact language of the modification clause is not provided. The homeowners association adopted mandatory assessments and disgruntled homeowners sued. This time, however, the Illinois Appellate Court held in favor of the homeowners association, holding that: [a] restrictive covenant which has been modified, altered or amended will be enforced if it is clear, unambiguous and reasonable; [t]he 1987 amendment does not seek to change the character of [the subdivision] or to impose unreasonable burdens upon any lot owners; and the terms and conditions of the 1987 amendment impose a minimal collective burden upon the residents. Id. at 1050. In Sunday Canyon Property Owners Association v. Annett, 978 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Ct. App.1998), the modification language allowed the covenants, upon a majority vote of the lot owners, to be waived, abandoned, terminated, modified, altered or changed. Id. at 656. Based on this language, the court allowed the requisite majority to adopt an amendment creating a homeowners association levying mandatory lot assessments. The court held that, despite the fact that the creation of the homeowners association exceeded the original purpose of the right to amend contemplated by purchasers prior to the amendment, it is of no moment. Recognized long ago was the right of persons... to contract with relation to their property as they see fit in the absence of contraventions of public policy and positive law. That right is derived from ownership of the property, and embraces the ability to impose on the property restrictive covenants and to abrogate or modify them. Id. at 658 (citations omitted). Finally, in Windemere Homeowners Association, Inc. v. McCue, 297 Mont. 77, 990 P.2d 769 (1999), a majority of homeowners voted to amend the covenants to create a homeowners association authorized to levy the costs of road maintenance against property owners. Basing his argument on Lakeland, Caughlin, and Boyles, plaintiff homeowner challenged the amendment as an impermissible new covenant. The court, however, held that the modification clause in these covenants was markedly different than those in Lakeland and its progeny; specifically, the clause, like that in Sunday Canyon, allowed a majority of property owners to waive[ ], abandon[ ], terminate[ ], modify[ ], alter[ ], or change[ ] the covenants. Id. at 773. Consequently, the court held that this amendatory language was broad enough to justify the amendment. Id.