Documents

This document is the foundational governing instrument for Winchester Landing – Section 1. It establishes the HOA, defines the lots and common areas, and imposes the restrictive covenants that run with the land and bind all current and future owners.

This recorded amendment modifies the original Section 1 Declaration of Covenants by revising assessment provisions, exempt property classifications, and certain restrictive covenant and reservation sections. Among other changes, it clarifies assessment purposes, expands categories of exempt property (including developer-owned lots), updates maintenance and easement language, and restates key restrictive covenants governing use, architectural control, and enforcement. As a recorded amendment, it supersedes the corresponding provisions of the original declaration and governs going forward

This deed establishes Winchester Landing – Section 2 and expressly adopts the covenants set out in the Section 1 Declaration, as amended, confirms that those covenants run with the land, and places Section 2 properties under the authority and enforcement of the Winchester Landing HOA.

This recorded corrective amendment clarifies the location and width of the Property Maintenance Easement between specified townhouse lots in Winchester Landing. It resolves an ambiguity created by the Section 1 and Section 2 plats by confirming that the easement is five (5) feet wide in total, consisting of 2.5 feet from each adjoining lot, rather than a single ten-foot easement. The amendment was recorded to correct the plat interpretation and conform the easement description to the original intent of the declarations, while leaving the underlying fencing restrictions and covenant framework otherwise unchanged.

This is the initial complaint I filed against the HOA and board member Mike Guevremont.

Mr. Guevremont’s attorney filed a motion demanding that I produce a deed referenced in my complaint. I had only included a portion of it, but the request was unnecessary, as Mr. Guevremont already received the full deed in his HOA disclosure package from Ryan Homes.

This is my reply to Mr. Guevremont’s Motion Craving Oyer. As I noted in the motion, the request was unnecessary, as Mr. Guevremont already received the full deed in his HOA disclosure package from Ryan Homes.

In his demurrer, the HOA attorney incorrectly lists both the HOA and Mr. Guevremont as his clients, when he in fact represents only the HOA.

This is the HOA’s initial response to my complaint. Their attorney claims a distinction between a property maintenance easement and a stormwater easement, which I addressed in this post. Additionally, he is asserting factual arguments in a demurrer—something improper, as I pointed out during the demurrer hearing.

He cited and attached numerous deeds (document dump) to the demurrer, most of which are irrelevant—like this one between the developer and Frederick Water, granting an easement around the condos in Winchester Landing. Referencing that deed in the demurrer that has nothing to do with Mr. Guevremont’s lot, he incorrectly claimed that the lot backs up to a 30-foot Frederick Water easement, not a five-foot property maintenance easement. This error was pointed out during the demurrer hearing, and he acknowledged the mistake.

The initial complaint was amended to add additional unaddressed covenant violations, specifically picket fences.

This is my reply to the HOA’s demurrer. I explain that I have clearly pleaded sufficient facts to state a cause of action and emphasize that a demurrer is not the proper forum for arguing factual disputes.

The complaint was amended again to remove the selective enforcement count, as it became clear that expecting a judge to continuously monitor the association’s enforcement practices would be impractical.

I filed this motion to remove the selective enforcement count from my complaint.

This is the HOA attorney’s reply to my reply to their demurrer. He repeats the same argument —that a property maintenance easement and a stormwater easement are distinctly different. Nothing new here.

As noted in this post, I asked Mr. Guevremont why his attorney wasn’t handling the work personally and was instead letting the HOA attorney do it. The very next day, his attorney filed this demurrer, mirroring the HOA attorney’s demurrer.

Here’s the judge’s order.

Legally, I clearly stated a valid cause of action:

1. There is a fence in an easement.
2. The restrictive covenant prohibits fences in easements.
3. The HOA has a duty to enforce the covenants.
4. The HOA is not enforcing the covenants.

This creates a textbook cause of action: a court can grant relief by ordering the HOA to enforce the prohibition against fences in easements.

This is the argument I made to the judge at the hearing, and frankly, it was a strong one. The two cases I cited—especially ADI v. Malyevac—clearly supported my position and left the judge with little room to maneuver, yet he sustained the HOA attorney’s demurrer anyway.