Background
The Hortons own a home in the Savannah Place subdivision in Bossier City, Louisiana. In 2021, the HOA board voted to consolidate mail kiosks throughout the neighborhood. The Hortons received notice of the consolidation in December 2021, and acknowledged it via email in January 2022. In February 2022, the HOA relocated one kiosk directly across from the Hortons’ driveway. The Hortons did not file suit until August 2024.
The Hortons alleged that the relocation created safety hazards by forcing mail carriers and residents to stop vehicles in the street to retrieve or deliver mail, resulting in traffic congestion that obstructed their driveway access. They claimed emotional distress, diminished property value, and a continuous safety risk. They sought an order relocating the kiosk or damages.
The HOA filed exceptions for no cause of action and prescription (statute of limitations). The district court ruled in the HOA’s favor, finding the claim prescribed under tort law’s one-year limitations period. The Hortons appealed, arguing the claim was contractual, subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under the Declaration of Covenants.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the Hortons’ claim sounded in tort rather than contract, and therefore prescribed under Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions. Although covenants between homeowners and HOAs are contractual in nature, the court emphasized that the applicable prescriptive period depends on the character of the action and the nature of the duty breached.
The court found the Hortons failed to identify any specific contractual provision in the Declaration that was breached. Instead, they alleged damages flowing from the HOA’s conduct itself—relocating the kiosk—rather than the breach of a specific contractual obligation. The preamble’s reference to promoting “health, safety and welfare” was not an all-encompassing fiduciary duty without a direct violation of a specific covenant or restriction. Significantly, the Hortons alleged no actual damages; they only asserted a foreseeable risk of harm.
Since the Hortons had notice of the relocation in December 2021 and acknowledged it in January 2022, and the kiosk was installed in February 2022, they had until February 2023 to sue under the one-year prescriptive period. Filing in August 2024 was too late. The court distinguished Southern Trace Property Owner’s Association v. Williams, where the HOA enforced a specific contractual obligation (collection of dues) expressly stated in governing documents.
Key Takeaways
- The nature of the duty breached—not merely the existence of a contract—determines whether a claim is tortious or contractual and which statute of limitations applies.
- A plaintiff asserting breach of an HOA covenant must identify a specific, actionable provision in the governing documents; general preambles about “health, safety, and welfare” do not create enforceable contractual duties without specific covenants.
- Allegations of emotional distress and safety risks, without actual damages, may be treated as delictual rather than contractual, triggering tort law’s much shorter prescriptive period.
- Homeowners’ knowledge of the HOA’s action starts the limitations clock running; delay of two years from installation to filing forecloses a one-year prescription claim.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a critical distinction in HOA litigation: contractual covenants between homeowners and associations are governed by contract law *only if* the plaintiff identifies a specific breach of a specific contractual duty. General references to the association’s overall purpose or fiduciary character do not convert a damages claim based on the association’s conduct into a breach of contract action. This has profound implications for prescription: the difference between a one-year tort statute of limitations and a ten-year contract limitations period can be dispositive.
The decision also underscores the importance of prompt action in HOA disputes. Homeowners who believe an association’s decision has caused injury must file within the one-year delictual prescriptive period once they have notice—even if they are still hoping for administrative resolution or belief that further harm is foreseeable. Justice Hunter’s dissent, invoking the continuing tort doctrine, signals that this issue remains contested and may recur if courts later embrace the view that persistent, ongoing harm from the kiosk’s presence should restart the limitations period.