Our lawsuit grew from a specific dispute with the HOA. We do not have reliable information about how much litigation the Association has brought against homeowners so we will not speculate.
The broader reform effort developed after other residents shared concerns about unclear rules, inconsistent enforcement, and limited transparency. Our proposals address those community-wide issues, regardless of the outcome of our individual dispute.
Some homeowners may not like the appearance of street-facing panels, and they are entitled to that opinion. But a personal aesthetic preference does not change North Carolina law. The guideline says: “Whenever possible, collectors should be placed on the rear of the home or on the side that has the least public exposure.”
“Whenever possible” acknowledges that preferred placement will not always be possible, and “should” expresses a preference rather than an absolute requirement.
More importantly, the ARC guidelines cannot be applied in a way that effectively prohibits solar panels. In Belmont Association v. Farwig, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that an HOA cannot use general architectural authority to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting solar panels by restricting their reasonable use.
The ARC did not identify any configuration it would approve. Its denial stated that all the panels would be fully visible from the road, but the submitted plans showed that 15 of the 36 panels would not face the road. We also provided an analysis showing that relocating the system to the rear would reduce its expected energy production by 59%.
No. Valid covenants and architectural standards should be enforced fairly and consistently. They must also comply with state and federal law.
N.C.G.S. § 22B-20 generally makes restrictions that prohibit, or effectively prohibit, residential solar collectors void and unenforceable. In Belmont Association v. Farwig, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that an ARC could not use general aesthetic authority to prohibit a street-facing installation when the recorded declaration did not expressly restrict solar panels. Our position is that the same principle applies here.
Yes. The goal is to enforce valid restrictions fairly and consistently while correcting architectural guidelines that are vague or conflict with governing law.
Our proposed ARC changes identify the language we believe should be revised and explain the proposed replacement for each provision. The objective is to give homeowners clearer expectations and reduce subjective, case-by-case decisions.
A reform-minded board would also communicate openly with homeowners and exhaust every reasonable option to resolve a dispute before considering litigation. Legal action would be a last resort. We would not rely on counsel that treats lawsuits, liens, or foreclosure as routine enforcement tools.
The available evidence says the opposite. A Berkeley Lab study analyzed 22,822 home sales across eight states, including 3,951 homes with solar. It found that buyers consistently paid a premium for homes with homeowner-owned solar systems. The average premium was approximately $4 per watt, or about $15,000 for the average 3.6-kilowatt system in the study.
Local market data likewise show no sign that nearby homes have become harder to sell. A shared MLS report contained 17 closed Brighton Forest listings. Their sale prices ranged from $630,000 to $905,000, with a median of $730,000. The median time on market was eight days.
All four Oakley Woods Lane sales occurred after our panels were installed. They ranged from $630,000 to $735,000 and averaged only 5.25 days on market.
We tried to resolve the issue without litigation. We asked the board to update the ARC guidelines to reflect North Carolina law and provided example language adopted by another community following the Belmont decision. That request was closed without a change, and subsequent efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful.
Because the disputed language is in the ARC guidelines rather than an express solar restriction in the recorded covenants, our position was that the board could correct it without a community-wide covenant amendment. Litigation followed only after enforcement, fines, and collection efforts continued.
We do not know how much the HOA has spent on this dispute or what its attorneys expect the total cost to be. Those are reasonable questions for the current board, including whether the expenses are being paid by the Association, its insurer, or both.
On our side, we waited until fines, collection efforts, and legal threats against our home made litigation unavoidable. We initially paid approximately $1,400 in fines while hoping the matter would end. Weeks later, the HOA assessed nearly $6,000 in additional charges and began pursuing collection. We filed suit only after the HOA’s attorneys threatened a lien and foreclosure. The HOA has since recorded a lien against our home and requested foreclosure. We have also incurred several thousand dollars in legal fees.
It is difficult to describe an ongoing lawsuit as “worth it.” We did not begin this process looking for a legal fight, and we filed only after fines, collection efforts, and legal threats against our home made further inaction untenable. The HOA has since recorded a lien against our home and requested foreclosure, so the threat to our home is not hypothetical.
We hope the outcome protects our family’s rights and leads to clearer, lawful standards that reduce the chance of another Brighton Forest homeowner facing the same situation.
← Back to home