The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia has issued a dissenting opinion in the case of Harvey Bellomy and Nancy Bellomy v. Falcon Ridge Unit Owners' Association, Inc., docket number 25-ICA-279. The dissenting opinion, filed on June 10, 2026, raises important questions about the enforceability of property declarations within common-interest communities. This ruling affects homeowners and property developers in West Virginia, particularly those involved in similar disputes over property declarations.
The case revolves around the enforceability of the Falcon Ridge Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which outlines the rules and regulations governing the Falcon Ridge community. The Bellomys, who own property within this community, challenged the declaration's enforceability due to a missing document, referred to as “Schedule A-1.” This document is supposed to identify the properties included in the common-interest community but was not present in the court's record.
The dispute reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after a lower court ruled on the enforceability of the declaration. The majority opinion of the court concluded that the absence of Schedule A-1 rendered the declaration unenforceable. However, Judge White, in his dissent, disagreed with this conclusion, asserting that the omission did not invalidate the declaration as a matter of law.
Judge White's dissent emphasizes that while the absence of Schedule A-1 creates uncertainty regarding which properties are included, it does not negate the existence of the declaration itself. He stated, “The absence of Schedule A-1 creates uncertainty concerning the scope of the declaration, not its existence.” The judge pointed out that the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act does not specify that a declaration becomes void due to minor deficiencies.
Furthermore, Judge White referenced a previous case, Jubb v. Letterle, which dealt with similar issues of ambiguity in property declarations. He argued that the intent of the parties involved should govern the interpretation of the declaration, and that the missing exhibit should not automatically render it unenforceable. He noted, “The fundamental rule in construing covenants and restrictive agreements is that the intention of the parties governs.”
According to Judge White, the record indicates that some property deeds within Falcon Ridge explicitly referenced the declaration and subjected specific lots to its restrictions. This suggests that there may be a longstanding understanding of the declaration's applicability, even in the absence of the missing document. He concluded that the ambiguity created by the missing exhibit should be resolved by the circuit court through further examination of relevant evidence.
Judge White expressed his belief that the question of whether the Bellomys’ property was intended to be included in the declaration should be determined by the circuit court. He stated, “Whether the Bellomys’ property was intended to be included within the declaration is a question the present record does not answer with certainty.” His dissent calls for a remand to the lower court to allow for a thorough investigation into the intent of the parties and the circumstances surrounding the declaration.
This dissenting opinion has implications for homeowners and property owners in West Virginia. It highlights the importance of understanding the enforceability of property declarations and the potential for ambiguity in such documents. The ruling may encourage property owners to seek clarity in their community's governing documents and ensure that all necessary information is included to avoid similar disputes in the future.
While the majority opinion declared the Falcon Ridge Declaration unenforceable, Judge White's dissent suggests that there is still room for interpretation and resolution of the issues at hand. This case may set a precedent for how courts handle similar disputes regarding property declarations in the future.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the majority opinion will be appealed or if further proceedings will take place in the circuit court. The dissenting opinion raises significant questions about the interpretation of property declarations and the role of intent in determining enforceability. As homeowners navigate the complexities of property ownership and community regulations, this case will likely serve as a reference point for future legal discussions.