The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently issued a dissenting opinion in the case of Harvey Bellomy and Nancy Bellomy v. Falcon Ridge Unit Owners' Association, Inc. This case, filed on June 10, 2026, revolves around the enforceability of a property declaration that affects homeowners in the Falcon Ridge community. The dissent raises important questions about property rights and the implications of missing documentation.
The dispute centers on the Falcon Ridge Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which outlines the rules and regulations for homeowners in the Falcon Ridge community. The Bellomys, who own property within this community, challenged the enforceability of the declaration due to the absence of a crucial document known as Schedule A-1. This document is supposed to identify the properties included in the common-interest community.
The case reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after the lower court ruled that the declaration was unenforceable because Schedule A-1 was missing from the record. This ruling sparked a dissenting opinion from Judge White, who disagreed with the majority's conclusion and argued for a different approach to the issue.
In the dissenting opinion, Judge White stated, "I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding that the Falcon Ridge Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions is unenforceable as to the Bellomys’ property." He acknowledged the problems presented by the missing Schedule A-1 but argued that this omission does not automatically render the declaration unenforceable.
Judge White pointed out that the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act requires a declaration to contain a legally sufficient description of the real estate in the common-interest community. However, he emphasized that the absence of Schedule A-1 creates uncertainty about the scope of the declaration, not its existence. He noted that the declaration was recorded and clearly indicated an intent to create a common-interest community.
"The absence of Schedule A-1 creates uncertainty concerning the scope of the declaration, not its existence," Judge White wrote. He argued that the missing document should not lead to a blanket ruling of unenforceability. Instead, he suggested that the circuit court should examine the declaration, subdivision plats, chains of title, and other relevant evidence to determine the intent behind the declaration and whether the Bellomys’ property was meant to be included.
Judge White referenced a previous case, Jubb v. Letterle, to support his argument. In that case, the West Virginia Supreme Court addressed uncertainty regarding recorded restrictions and emphasized that the intention of the parties is paramount. He stated, "The fundamental rule in construing covenants and restrictive agreements is that the intention of the parties governs." This principle, he argued, should apply to the current case despite the statutory requirements set forth in the Uniform Act.
The dissent highlights the complexities of property law and the importance of understanding the intentions of property owners and associations. Judge White noted that some deeds within Falcon Ridge specifically referenced the declaration, while others did not. This inconsistency raises questions about which properties are subject to the declaration's restrictions.
By advocating for a remand to the circuit court, Judge White aims to ensure that the relevant evidence is thoroughly examined. He believes that the determination of whether the Bellomys’ property was intended to be included in the declaration should not be resolved solely by the missing exhibit. Instead, it should involve a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the declaration.
The dissenting opinion in this case carries significant implications for homeowners and property associations in West Virginia. It underscores the importance of clear documentation in property declarations and the potential consequences of missing information. The ruling could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the interpretation of property declarations and the intent of property owners.
Moving forward, the case may be subject to further legal actions. The dissenting opinion opens the door for the possibility of an appeal or additional proceedings in the circuit court to clarify the issues at hand. Homeowners and property associations alike will be watching closely to see how this case develops and what it means for property rights in West Virginia.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding the next steps for the case or whether an appeal is expected. However, the dissenting opinion raises important questions that may prompt further legal examination and discussion among property owners and associations.