Background
Sandra R. Nabors purchased property in the Austin Park II subdivision in Daphne, Alabama, in 2013. The deed expressly subjected the property to recorded restrictive covenants requiring prior written approval from an architectural-review committee before any structural improvements or alterations could be undertaken.
In 2023, the Austin Brook and Austin Park Property Owners Association (“the POA”) sued the Naborses, alleging they had violated the covenants by regrading their lot and by installing a concrete patio, an aboveground pool, and a fence without the committee’s approval. Following a bench trial, the Baldwin Circuit Court entered a mixed judgment: it ordered the Naborses to lower or conceal the pool deck but declined to require complete removal of the pool, denied relief regarding the patio, and awarded the POA $6,053.02 plus $15,738 in attorneys’ fees.
The POA appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not ordering removal of the pool and by failing to enforce the covenants as to the patio and deck.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. On the pool, the court held that the doctrine of estoppel barred the POA from demanding removal. The evidence showed that William Nabors and his son had attended a meeting of the architectural-review committee and asked for permission to build the pool, no follow-up denial was issued within 30 days, the POA was aware of the pool’s construction as early as 2017, and no cease-and-desist letter regarding the pool was ever sent. The court also noted evidence of material harm to the Naborses’ son—who used the pool for developmental and safety purposes—if removal were now ordered.
However, the court reversed the judgment as to the patio and deck with handrail. The Naborses never sought written approval from the committee for either improvement. A cease-and-desist letter was sent in 2022 regarding the patio, and any informal “approval” from a former board member who was not on the architectural-review committee carried no legal weight. The covenants unambiguously require prior written approval for all structural improvements, and the Naborses “failed to comply in any way.” The cause was remanded for proceedings consistent with this holding.
Key Takeaways
- Estoppel can defeat enforcement of restrictive covenants where the association had actual knowledge of the violation, failed to act for years, and the homeowner relied on that silence to their detriment.
- Informal communications with individual board members—even those who sit on the POA board—cannot substitute for the formal written approval process required by the covenants.
- Alabama courts will enforce architectural-review requirements strictly when homeowners bypass the approval process entirely, distinguishing that scenario from cases where the association’s own inaction created reliance.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Alabama’s intermediate appellate court treats restrictive covenants as enforceable contracts but remains willing to apply equitable defenses when associations sleep on their rights. For practitioners advising homeowners, the case underscores the importance of obtaining written committee approval before construction—verbal assurances from board members carry no weight. For POA counsel, it serves as a cautionary tale: associations that delay enforcement risk estoppel, particularly where the homeowner can demonstrate reliance and material harm. The opinion also reaffirms the analytical framework from Hankins v. Crane and Tubbs v. Brandon for evaluating estoppel defenses in the covenant-enforcement context.