The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has ruled in a property dispute involving the Austin Brook and Austin Park Property Owners Association, Inc. (POA) and homeowners William E. Nabors and Sandra R. Nabors. The court's decision, filed on June 5, 2026, addresses the enforcement of restrictive covenants in the Austin Park II subdivision in Daphne, Alabama. This ruling affects homeowners and property associations across the state, clarifying the enforcement of community rules.
The dispute arose when the POA sued the Naborses for alleged violations of restrictive covenants. The association claimed that the Naborses made unauthorized changes to their property, including regrading their lot, installing a concrete patio, an aboveground pool, and a fence without approval from the subdivision's architectural-review committee. The case was initially heard in the Baldwin Circuit Court, which ruled in favor of the POA.
Sandra Nabors purchased her property in 2013, and in 2018, she transferred her interest to herself and her husband, William Nabors. The POA filed suit against the Naborses on August 14, 2023, after they made changes to their property without the required approvals. The Naborses responded by denying the claims and asserting defenses including waiver and estoppel. Following a bench trial, the Baldwin Circuit Court ruled in favor of the POA, ordering the Naborses to remove or lower their deck and railing, maintain preventive measures for erosion, and pay $6,053.02 in damages.
After the trial court's judgment, the POA sought to amend the ruling and requested attorney's fees, which were granted. The Naborses appealed the decision, leading to the current ruling by the Court of Civil Appeals.
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating, "The Naborses did not plead or present evidence of relative hardship." This means that the Naborses failed to demonstrate that enforcing the covenants would cause them significant hardship. The court emphasized that the POA was within its rights to enforce the covenants as they were clearly stated. The judges noted that the covenants required written approval from the architectural-review committee for any changes to properties.
The court also addressed the ambiguity surrounding the definition of pools in the covenants. The POA argued that the Naborses' aboveground pool violated the requirement that pools must be of an in-ground nature. However, the court found that the language in the covenants was ambiguous and that the Naborses had substantially complied with the requirements by informing the committee of their plans. The ruling stated, "Substantial performance of a contract does not contemplate exact performance of every detail but performance of all important parts."
Moving forward, this ruling clarifies the enforcement of restrictive covenants in Alabama. Homeowners associations can enforce their rules, but homeowners may also have defenses available, such as the argument of substantial compliance. This case emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures when making changes to property in a subdivision.
The ruling does not appear to set a new legal precedent but reinforces existing principles regarding restrictive covenants and the rights of property owners. Homeowners associations must ensure they enforce rules consistently to avoid claims of discriminatory enforcement. The case also highlights the importance of clear communication between homeowners and property associations regarding property modifications.
As for what’s next, the Naborses may consider further appeals, but details regarding any potential next steps are not available in the court filing. The case serves as a reminder for homeowners to be aware of their community's rules and the procedures for making changes to their properties.