Riss v. Angel

Mercia Heights was a housing development in which the properties were subject both to specific building-requirement covenants, such as limits on the height of a house, and also to a consent-to-construction covenant, which gave the homeowners’ association the right to reject any proposed construction design. William and Carolyn Riss owned a property in Mercia Heights and submitted a building plan seeking to tear down an existing home on their lot and construct a new home. The association board members reviewed the construction plans under the consent-to-construction covenant. Despite the fact that the plans complied with the specific building requirement covenants, the board eventually rejected the Risses’ plan. The board relied on and disseminated erroneous information about the plans, including information alleging that the plans violated height and square-footage requirements, and failed to adequately investigate or consider the actual details of the plans. After rejecting the plans, the board provided the Risses with guidance about how to change the plan, which included requirements that were more onerous than the specific building covenants. The Risses appealed the plan rejection to the homeowners’ association, including Angel and others (plaintiffs). The members voted to uphold the rejection, after the board lobbied the members to do so. The Risses sued the homeowner-association members for the rejection of the plans. The lower court held that the covenant had been unreasonably applied, except as to one requirement concerning the exterior appearance of the proposed house. The court of appeals affirmed, and the association members appealed.