Background
Falcon Ridge is a planned community in Mercer County, West Virginia, established in 1994 when Shoemaker Construction Company, Inc. (SCC) recorded a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions (“Falcon Ridge DCR”) under West Virginia’s Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. The DCR purported to govern a 49-unit subdivision and referenced an attached “Schedule A-1” for the legal description of the included real estate — but Schedule A-1 was never actually filed with the Mercer County Clerk’s office.
In 2020 and 2021, Harvey and Nancy Bellomy purchased dozens of vacant lots within Falcon Ridge from the Shoemaker heirs, along with several street rights-of-way and portions of Lot 94 — the parcel containing the community’s nature park and entrance sign. Neither deed to the Bellomys referenced or incorporated the Falcon Ridge DCR. After taking title, the Bellomys fenced off roads, parked a cargo trailer on community lots, and asserted exclusive ownership over roads and amenities long used by Falcon Ridge residents.
Falcon Ridge filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in 2023 seeking a ruling that the community’s streets, Lot 94, and its entrance sign were common elements owned by the association, and that the Falcon Ridge DCR bound the Bellomys’ lots. The Bellomys counterclaimed, arguing they held clear title free of any HOA restrictions. The Circuit Court of Mercer County granted summary judgment to Falcon Ridge on all claims, and the Bellomys appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed on all substantive grounds. First, the court held that the Falcon Ridge DCR was unenforceable under West Virginia Code § 36B-2-105(a)(3) because it lacked a legally sufficient description of the real estate it purported to encumber — Schedule A-1 was never attached to or filed with the recorded declaration. Without that description, the DCR failed to meet the threshold statutory requirements for creating a valid common interest community under the Uniform Act, and the circuit court’s finding that the omission was immaterial was plainly wrong.
Second, the court held that even setting aside the DCR’s deficiencies, the Bellomys’ deeds contained no language subjecting their lots to the DCR’s covenants and restrictions. The court contrasted the Bellomys’ deeds with other Falcon Ridge conveyances that expressly incorporated the DCR by reference, concluding that where a deed is silent as to HOA restrictions, those restrictions do not run with the land. The court also rejected the circuit court’s application of West Virginia Code § 36-3-11 (the corrective deed statute) to divest the Bellomys of the eastern portion of Lot 94, finding the 2021 deed was a valid standalone conveyance, not a corrective deed subject to that statute’s limitations.
Third, the court found the Bellomys hold a valid easement for ingress, egress, and utility access across the streets conveyed to Falcon Ridge, based on an explicit easement reservation in the 2007 deed from SCC to Falcon Ridge that passed to SCC’s successors-in-interest. The court declined to address the Bellomys’ claim of judicial misconduct, finding that argument inadequately briefed and therefore waived.
Key Takeaways
- A declaration of covenants recorded under West Virginia’s Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act must contain a legally sufficient description of the encumbered real estate; referencing an unattached and unfiled schedule is fatal to the declaration’s enforceability.
- HOA restrictions do not automatically bind all lots within a subdivision’s geographic boundaries — if a deed is silent as to covenants, the purchaser takes title free of them, even where neighboring lots are expressly subject to the same restrictions.
- A deed that adds property not included in a prior conveyance is a valid standalone conveyance under West Virginia Code § 36-3-5, not a “corrective deed” subject to the limitations of § 36-3-11, so long as it satisfies basic deed formation requirements.
- Easement reservations in a grantor’s deed pass to the grantor’s successors-in-interest and remain enforceable even after the encumbered property changes hands to an HOA.
Why It Matters
This decision is a significant caution for homeowners associations and their counsel in West Virginia. An HOA’s ability to enforce its declaration depends on strict compliance with the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act at the time of formation — including ensuring that any referenced legal description is actually attached to and recorded with the declaration. Associations that relied on informal or incomplete recordings to establish their common interest communities may find their covenants unenforceable against owners whose deeds predate a cure or who took title without express covenant language.
The ruling also reinforces that the chain of title in each individual deed controls whether restrictive covenants bind a particular parcel. Developers and associations cannot assume that subdivision-wide restrictions travel automatically with the land absent explicit incorporation in every conveyance. Practitioners representing purchasers of bulk or residual lots in older planned communities should scrutinize both the recorded declaration and the deed chain for compliance with applicable statutory requirements before assuming HOA obligations attach.