From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Kiekel v. Four Colonies Home Association
Kansas Court of Appeals
162 P.3d 57 (2007)
The Four Colonies subdivision was created in 1971 as a planned-unit development. The Four Colonies Home Association (the Association) (defendant) governed the subdivision. A Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (declaration) addressed ownership rights and property-use restrictions, including restrictions on commercial use and noxious activities. The declaration did not expressly prohibit or permit the renting of property, though it included lessees and tenants in its definition of resident. The subdivision’s bylaws included enforcement and procedural provisions. Amendment of the declaration required a supermajority vote of all owners, but amendment of the bylaws required only a majority vote. From the time of the subdivision’s creation, owners rented their properties. The Kiekels (plaintiffs) were non-occupying owners of eight units, which the Kiekels rented out. Other subdivision owners complained about the disruptive conduct of the Kiekels’ tenants and the Kiekels’ failure to maintain their units. In 1997, the Association proposed a bylaws amendment to restrict property rentals. The Association withdrew the proposal after determining that it conflicted with the declaration. In 2004, owners amended the bylaws to prohibit currently rented property from being rented after a change in ownership. The Kiekels filed a petition for declaratory judgment, claiming that the amendment was void, because it conflicted with the declaration. The Association filed a counterclaim, asserting that the Kiekels were violating the declaration’s noxious-activity and commercial-use restrictions. The Association sought an injunction to prevent the Kiekels from renting their units and to require the Kiekels to sell the units to occupying owners. The district court denied the Kiekels’ claim and the Association’s request for an injunction, finding that the bylaws did not conflict with the declaration and that the Association could also restore the Kiekels’ property and add the restoration costs to the Kiekels’ annual assessment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Malone, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.