When the language in the covenant is clear no further review of surrounding circumstances is required. This case allowed a majority of land owners to revise the declaration without compliance with the membership requirement of the bylaws. The association had no authority to provide voting requirement in the bylaws that contradicted the clear language of the declaration.
Specific statutes have precedent over general statutes if they conflict. Similar statutes should be construed together even if they do not reference each other. This is the prime argument why the definition of meeting in the public body open meeting laws also applies to the open meeting laws for Common interest communities, as presented in AG opinion I97-012 above. This is specifically why the use of e-mails by a quorum board members in common interest communities is a violation of the open meeting laws. See HB 2065 from 2018.
Bylaws do not satisfy Covenants on the land, and cannot add or alter restrictions on the use of the land. Without specific authority granted in the Declaration the associations do not have the power to adopt rules other than those to protect the common property that restrict the use occupancy of, or behavior within individually owned lots or units.
When the prior case (Dreamland v. Rainey) determined that an amendment to the CC&Rs was invalid the association owed all homeowners in the community restitution for all charges paid based on that amendment.
Established that the initial HOA dispute resolution process enacted in 2006 was unconstitutional based on separation of powers. Process ended in 2010 but was reinstated in 2011 by enation of SB 1142. Transferred to the Department of Real Estate in 2016.
Foreclosure action on an HOA assessment lien constitutes debt collection under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and post judgement attorney fees cannot be added absent specific authorization by a Judge.