In 2025, a Delaware couple planned a 24-by-28-foot garage, but their HOA rejected its metal siding and roof and recorded a violation against their property; a court magistrate has now ruled the notice must be cancelled

A Delaware couple who faced legal action from their homeowners association over plans to build a detached garage have won their court case. A judicial magistrate ordered the cancellation of a recorded violation notice against their property. Magistrate in Chancery Selena E. Molina ruled that the community’s board had gone beyond its authority when it rejected the couple’s proposed building materials and placed a legal claim against their property’s title. The decision allows the couple to move ahead with building their 24-by-28-foot garage without facing fines or other legal restrictions linked to the dispute. The case was heard in the Delaware Court of Chancery and involved homeowners John and Sandra Mitchell and the board of directors of their residential community.

Clash over building materials

The dispute began in 2025 when the couple submitted plans to their homeowners association to build a detached garage measuring 24 by 28 feet on their property. Their design included metal siding and a metal roof, chosen to match other smaller buildings on neighbouring properties. The board rejected the plans, claiming that the community’s property rules banned metal exterior finishes. It argued that detached buildings had to use traditional vinyl siding and asphalt shingles instead. The homeowners challenged the decision. They pointed out that several other properties in the development already had metal roofs and detached storage sheds. Despite their objections, the board took further action. Its directors filed a formal notice of violation against the couple’s property in the county land records. This created a legal issue with the property’s title, potentially making it harder for the couple to sell or refinance their home without first resolving the alleged violation. The couple then filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. They asked the court to overturn the board’s decision and remove the violation notice from the public land records.

Arbitrary enforcement of covenants

In a detailed judicial report released by the Delaware Court of Chancery, Magistrate Molina reviewed the community’s founding documents and its past decisions on similar building projects. The court found that the association had general authority to review changes to buildings and other structures. However, the written property restrictions did not clearly ban metal siding or metal roofing on detached buildings. Magistrate Molina also pointed out that the board had allowed similar buildings with metal siding and metal roof features on other properties in the same development over the years. Under Delaware property law, homeowners associations cannot apply unwritten design rules selectively or arbitrarily. They must follow the restrictions set out in their governing documents. The court also explained that property restrictions must be interpreted in favour of the owner’s right to use their land freely. If the community’s rules are unclear, the uncertainty must be resolved in favour of the property owner rather than the association.

Ordering the cancellation of the violation notice

Magistrate Molina recommended a final judgment in favour of the homeowners. She directed the county recorder of deeds to remove the violation notice from the public records. The magistrate also declared that the association’s original rejection of the couple’s 24-by-28-foot garage plans was legally invalid. Under the ruling, the board cannot take further enforcement action or impose fines against John and Sandra Mitchell because they chose metal siding and roofing materials. Lawyers who advise homeowners associations in Delaware have followed the case as part of a wider body of legal decisions concerning disputes over residential property rules. The Court of Chancery’s ruling reinforces the need for housing associations to maintain clear, written standards before limiting changes homeowners can make to their properties. It also places limits on the use of recorded claims against property titles during disputes over alleged rule violations. For the Mitchells, the decision removes the recorded violation and clears a major legal obstacle to their proposed garage.