MAGWV has successfully argued that an above ground “swim spa” constitutes an above ground “swimming pool” and is therefore prohibited when an association’s governing documents prohibit above ground swimming pools.
In Hills of Oakland Subdivision Association v. Victoria M. Seibert, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that “swim spas” meet the common usage of the term “swimming pool,” which is an important precedent for community association law.
The Problem
Many associations’ governing documents include explicit prohibitions on above ground swimming pools. In many cases, swim spas were not yet invented or well known when those governing documents were drafted. Over the past few years, owners with swim spas have consistently argued that these above ground swim spas are akin to hot tubs and do not constitute above ground swimming pools, even though swim spas are substantially larger than a typical hot tub.
The Case
Hills of Oakland Subdivision Association v. Victoria M. Seibert involved the defendant’s installation of a swim spa on her property without obtaining the Association’s prior approval. The Association argued that, not only did the homeowner fail to obtain the Association’s prior approval, but the swim spa also violated the ban on above ground swimming pools. The Defendant contended, among other things, that her swim spa did not qualify as an above ground swimming pool and that the Association’s approval process was inconsistent and unclear.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the Association, finding the Defendant violated the Association’s governing documents, as she had not obtained the Association’s approval prior to making exterior additions to her Lot.
The Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the trial court’s decision, and in doing so also concluded that the swim spa indeed met what would be commonly understood as a swimming pool. The Court cited to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in determining that the swim spa meets the common usage of the term “swimming pool.” There was no dispute the swim spa was located above ground, and therefore was explicitly prohibited by the Association’s governing documents.
The Takeaway for Community Associations
This decision is a significant win for community associations, as it not only validates an association’s right to enforce its restrictions, but further clarifies that a swim spa (an increasingly common addition) meets the definition of a swimming pool. This decision helps preserve the aesthetic and uniform character of communities, which are a key objective of homeowners’ associations. Moreover, the ruling underscores the necessity of following governing document requirements for seeking approval prior to making any exterior modifications to help ensure compliance with a community’s restrictions.
