The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving a dispute between homeowners Joy Denise Smith and Willie Lamar Smith and the Forge Creek at Flowers Plantation Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA). The court's decision addresses the Smiths' expansion of their driveway, which the HOA claims violated community guidelines. This ruling could have implications for how homeowners associations enforce their rules and how homeowners can respond to such enforcement.

The Smiths, who own a home in the Forge Creek community, sought to expand their driveway to accommodate additional parking. The HOA had previously granted conditional approval for a narrower expansion but claimed the Smiths exceeded this approval. The court's ruling comes after a series of legal challenges that began when the HOA attempted to impose fines on the Smiths for the expanded driveway.

Background

The Forge Creek community is governed by a set of recorded Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, as well as Design Guidelines that dictate how property modifications must be handled. The Smiths' lot is subject to these rules, which require homeowners to obtain prior written approval from the HOA's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before making any changes to their property.

In early 2023, the Smiths submitted a request to the ARC to widen their driveway by four feet to the left and three feet to the right. The ARC conducted a review and granted conditional approval, allowing the driveway to be widened but with specific limitations. However, the Smiths proceeded to expand their driveway beyond these limits, leading to a series of warnings and fines from the HOA.

After the HOA issued a warning about fines for noncompliance, the Smiths filed a complaint in October 2023, seeking to declare their driveway expansion permissible and to prevent the HOA from enforcing fines. The case moved through the legal system, resulting in a preliminary injunction in favor of the Smiths, which the HOA later appealed.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Allegra Collins, ruled on May 20, 2026, addressing both the preliminary injunction and the summary judgment that had been granted to the Smiths. The court found that while the Smiths had constructed a driveway that exceeded the conditional approval, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ARC's refusal to approve the full expansion was arbitrary or unreasonable.

The court ruled, "Because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the ARC exercised its discretionary authority in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, we vacate the order granting summary judgment to the Smiths, affirm the order denying the HOA summary judgment, and remand for trial."

Additionally, the court vacated the preliminary injunction because the trial court had failed to consider the security requirement outlined in Rule 65(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. This ruling emphasizes that the trial court must take into account the potential costs and damages that may arise from issuing an injunction.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both the Smiths and the Forge Creek community. For the Smiths, the decision means their case will go to trial, where the court will examine whether the HOA acted reasonably in denying their driveway expansion request. For the HOA, the ruling reinforces the need to follow proper procedures when enforcing community guidelines, especially regarding the issuance of fines and approvals.

The case also highlights the balance between homeowners' rights to modify their properties and the authority of homeowners associations to enforce community standards. The outcome of the trial could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly in communities governed by strict architectural guidelines.

What's Next

The case will proceed to trial, where the court will hear evidence from both parties regarding the driveway expansion and the HOA's actions. The court's ruling allows for the possibility of an appeal following the trial, depending on the outcome and any further disputes that may arise.