Riss v. Angel
Clyde Hill · WA · Supreme Court of Washington
Member win · architectural
What happened
William and Carolyn Riss bought lot 6 in Mercia Heights (Clyde Hill) in 1992. Neighbors, acting as the homeowners group after the Mercia Corporation dissolved, rejected their building plans under a consent-to-construction clause. The trial court found the rejection unreasonable and arbitrary and held members liable for delay damages and attorney fees. On March 6, 1997, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that the owners may build and upheld liability principles tied to the unreasonable denial.
What the court (or agency) held
The Washington Supreme Court held that a homeowners association may not use a general consent-to-construction covenant to impose restrictions more burdensome than the subdivision's specific objective covenants. Neighbors could consider size, height, and proximity, but Mercia Heights' rejection of the Risses' plans was unreasonable and arbitrary because it was made without adequate investigation and rested on inaccurate information. The Court affirmed that the owners may build the proposed home and related liability/fee consequences flowing from the arbitrary denial.
Why this matters for members
General consent covenants are limited by specific objective restrictions; denials need real investigation and accurate facts. Arbitrary neighbor vetoes create damage and fee exposure.
What the member did
Submitted plans under the covenants, then sued when the association rejected them, proving the denial was inadequately investigated and factually inaccurate.
Questions for the board
- Are plan denials tied to specific recorded covenants rather than open-ended taste?
- What investigation and measurements precede a rejection?
- Are decision-makers using accurate height/setback information?
Questions for a lawyer
- What record shows inadequate investigation or factual error in the denial?
- How do specific objective covenants cabin a general consent clause?
- What delay damages and fee theories remain after affirmance?
Citation
Riss v. Angel, 131 Wn.2d 612, 934 P.2d 669 (1997) (1997-03-06). Supreme Court of Washington. Outcome chip: member_win. Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1997/63898-5-1.html
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.