November 3, 2025
When disputes between homeowners and their HOA or condominium boards escalate into the courts, often one or more parties seek an injunction. An injunction is a court order requiring a defendant to do or not do something. Injunctive relief in community association cases contrasts with normal civil remedies like money damages.
Since starting this blog over 10 years ago, I have posted various articles about injunctive relief in community association cases. In my May 24, 2019 and July 12, 2022 posts, I focused on the basics of injunctive relief in Virginia as this pertains to community association matters. Today I would like to discuss two recent judicial opinions that illustrate the criteria applicable to pursuing or resisting injunction suits.
Ordinarily, a plaintiff is required to plead and prove irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law to get an injunction. This requires something more shown than mere breach of a statute, contract provision or common law duty. In other words, there must be a good reason to grant this remedy instead of money damages.
In HOA cases, determining the legal standard is not simple. The Property Owners Association Act and Condominium Act require the board and the homeowners to comply with the statutes and the governing instruments. By statute, failure to comply is grounds for civil action to sue for damages or injunctive relief, or any other remedy available at law or equity. This raises a question as to whether plaintiffs must prove injunction claims according to the aforesaid (stringent) requirements, or does this mean that the plaintiff can just prove breach and meet whatever defenses the opposition presents.
2024 Norfolk Case, Patterson v. Gardner:
In 2024, the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia considered this issue in a fence case. Laurie Patterson sued Robert and Carol Gardner in an effort to block them from constructing a fence that she contended violated the condominium bylaws and would constitute a nuisance. Passions ran high, as two dogs, one ex-boyfriend, scenic views and water access were at stake. The parties litigated Ms. Pattersons objections to the portion of the fence planned for the Gardner lot. This was important to the Gardners who wanted to enclose their yard for their dog to run without a leash.
The parties’ condominium’s bylaws provided: “No unit owner may erect additional improvements or change the exterior appearance of his unit without the consent of the other unit owner.” Gardner pointed to the section of the Condominium Act that provided injunctive relief as appropriate for beach of governing instruments as the basis for her remedy.
Patterson argued that she was entitled to an injunction under Va. Code § 55.1-1915(A) once she established that the Gardner’s’ property is subject to the condominium instruments and that they have failed to comply. The Judge rejected this argument, holding that proof of irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law are prerequisites to the granting of an injunction under a court’s traditional equity jurisdiction. Neither is required when a statute or ordinance expressly empowers a court to grant an injunction against its violation. In that case all that is required is proof that the statute or regulation has been violated.
The Court did not treat this to be the case, because Patterson did not sue for violation of a statute; she sued for a violation of the condominium instruments. The statute merely provided standing for a pre-existing remedy. Thus reasoning, the Court said that as the remedies given are all encompassing and long pre-dated the statute, the General Assembly may have enacted Va. Code § 55.1-1915(A) merely to confer standing on certain people to exercise statutory rights. The Court observed that even if the statute did relax what Patterson had to prove in her case in chief, it did not prevent the Gardner’s from bringing the defense of unclean hands, or from arguing that exercise of judicial discretion.
Ultimately, the Circuit Court ruled against Ms. Patterson, finding that the defense of unclean hands barred her suit, because she frequently allowed her own dog to roam on the Gardner property.
2023 Virginia Federal Court Case, Thomas Jefferson Crossings HOA v. Etemadipour:
Similar issues arose in a federal case brought by Thomas Jefferson Crossings HOA in Forest, Virginia against the Etemadipour family for constructing homes on lots in a manner alleged to be contrary to the architectural standards. The HOA objected to both the absence of architectural approval, and to technical aspects of what was actually built. The HOA sought a court order requiring the homeowners to demolish the home and start the process over.
The U.S. District Court observed:
- Code § 55.1-1828(A) allows for damages or injunctive relief when a lot owner fails to comply with a property owner’s association’s declaration.
- An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and rests on sound judicial discretion to be exercised upon consideration of the nature and circumstances of a particular case.
- In general, a court may not grant injunctive relief unless a party has shown that party would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, and that the party has no adequate remedy at law.
- However, in cases involving a violation of a real covenant, an injunction is granted almost as a matter of course unless a defendant can meet an exception.
- Virginia courts have recognized an exception for when an injunction would create a hardship or injustice that is out of proportion to the relief sought. The hardship defense would be available regardless of what basic criteria apply to the plaintiff’s claim.
In this case, the homeowner constructed the house with a crawlspace. The HOA said that it would have only approved it with slab construction, not crawlspace. The court found that even if the standards did require a slab, the external visual difference between slab and crawl space to be insubstantial. Slight deviation from plans did not warrant demolition. The Court agreed with the homeowners that the request that they tear down their homes presented an undue hardship, and that this warranted exercise of discretion in denying the requested demolition injunction.
Both of these courts appear to be taking a position that, regardless to whether irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law are required, normal defenses in equity such as unclean hands, undue hardship, and judicial discretion are available to a defendant in a community association injunction case. This is good news for homeowners because the judges ought to be flexible in the grounds upon which they can deny an injunction.
Note that sometimes, “the shoe is on the other foot,” and the homeowner seeks an injunction against a neighbor or the board. In many cases, an injunction is the judicial remedy that the homeowner seeks. It is not good for the homeowner if the courts are stringent across the board in their use of injunctive relief.
Hopefully, the appellate courts in Virginia will provide additional guidance regarding whether irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law are required in community association cases generally, or if other principles relax the standards. In my personal, private opinion, the wording of the governing instruments regarding the availability of the injunction relief in community association cases (or any other remedy) ought to carry significant weight. For example, if the recorded instruments expressly say that an injunction is a remedy for breach of the terms of the recorded instrument, then the Court ought to grant an injunction, without regard as to the availability of other judicial remedies or irreparability, unless there is an equity that warrants discretionary denial or some defense in equity is proven. Such an approach is consistent with the statute and the judicial precedents. The drafter of the recorded instruments choses the wording of the language, and homeowners are provided with a copy of it in their disclosure packets. It is unclear from the case law whether the rule that restrictive covenants are enforced by injunction regardless as to irreparable harm or adequacy of damages would apply to terms of governing instruments that are more like corporate bylaws or “business” concerns. For these reasons, the applicable standard may vary.
Legal Authority:
Va. Code § 55.1-1915 (Condo Act)
Patterson v. Gardner, 114 Va. Cir. 288 (Norfolk 2024)
