State’s highest court rules against HOA in solar panel battle

The Missouri Supreme Court decided that the Circuit Court of Greene County erred when it refused to invalidate a now forbidden covenant barring solar panels in a subdivision.

Homeowners Colleen Eikmeier and William Love purchased a lot in a subdivision in the county that was subject to a ban on solar panels. But, shortly after purchasing the lot, the legislature enacted a law outlawing covenants that limited or prohibited solar panels.

The homeowners brought their case against the Granite Springs Home Owners Association, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a declaration that the covenant violated state statute, according to the court.

Greene County Judge Daniel R. Wichmer denied the plaintiff’s request for relief, arguing that the statute could not apply to pre-existing covenants. The homeowners appealed, and the state supreme court wrote in its opinion that the lower court erred and reversed the decision in favor of Eikmeier and Love.

The plaintiffs raised two points in their appeal.

“First, they argue the circuit court erred in determining section 442.404.3 applies prospectively in the narrow manner found by the court,” Judge Robin Ransom wrote on behalf of the court. “Second, they contend the circuit court erred in analyzing retrospectivity.”

Ransom argued that the law applies to all covenants, including those in existence before the statute’s effective date.

“Consequently, it applies to the covenant the homeowners challenged,” Ransom wrote.

Another issue that arose in the case was the HOA’s prohibition on street facing solar panels and whether this rule could be enforced.

The amended statute allowing solar panels “expressly contemplates reasonable rules regarding the placement of solar panels.”

The lower court’s opinion focused on whether the covenant was retroactively invalidated by the statute, not on whether the HOA’s prohibition on street facing panels could be enforced. But the court did acknowledge that the plaintiffs presented evidence showing placing panels on non-street facing portions of their roof would increase the cost and decrease the efficiency of the system, according to court documents.

Conversely, the HOA did not offer evidence to disprove these claims.

Because the HOA’s rule adversely impacts the cost and efficiency of the panels, it cannot be enforced, the court determined.

“Pursuant to Rule 84.14, this court enters judgment in the homeowners’ favor. The HOA’s restriction prohibiting solar panels cannot be enforced,” Ransom wrote. “Moreover, the HOA’s rule prohibiting placement of solar panels on street-facing rooflines has been shown to adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device. That rule cannot be enforced against the homeowners.”

The case is Colleen Eikmeier and William Love v. Granite Springs Homeowners Association, Case no. SC101152.