Why an unpublished opinion is a weak foundation

Under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.04(f), an unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. It may be cited, with the required notice and a copy furnished, but a Kansas court is not obliged to follow it and an opposing party will say so.

That matters practically. A Kansas board relying on Parkwood Hills for the proposition that a minimum-lease covenant survives a selective-enforcement defence is relying on a decision another panel is free to disagree with. It is a reason for confidence, not a reason for certainty, and that is the distinction counsel advising a board draws.

What a board actually does in a legal vacuum

Rely on the text, because there is nothing else. With no case law interpreting Kansas covenants for two years, the enforceability of a restriction turns on how clearly it is written. Vague provisions have no judicial gloss to lean on here. A declaration that says what it means is worth more in Kansas than in states with a developed body of covenant decisions.

Build a record, because the fight will be factual. Where the law is thin, the outcome turns on facts: whether the board applied the restriction consistently, whether it gave notice, whether it followed its own procedure. K.S.A. 58-4616 requires an association to retain minutes, financial records, contracts and records of architectural approvals and denials for at least five years.³ That is the file that answers a selective-enforcement allegation.

Take the statutory constraints seriously, because they are what a court will have. K.S.A. 58-4608 provides that a board “may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action,” and lets it decline to enforce where its legal position does not justify action, where the restriction is or likely is inconsistent with law, where the violation is not material, or where enforcement is not in the association's best interests. With little case law, that text is the standard.

Use the ADR power. K.S.A. 58-4608 lets an association require nonbinding alternative dispute resolution as a prerequisite to litigation. In a jurisdiction with no recent covenant precedent, litigation is more expensive and less predictable for both sides, which makes mediation genuinely attractive rather than a formality.

Why Kansas produces so few of these cases

Three reasons, and they compound. The state has no agency generating administrative appeals. K.S.A. 58-4621 gives courts discretion to award fees to either side, which makes marginal cases risky to bring. And Kansas associations settle: a fee-shifting statute with no precedent to predict outcomes against is an argument for resolving disputes rather than testing them.

The result is a body of law that develops in decades rather than years, and a state where the recorded declaration does almost all of the work.

What to watch next

Watch for the first published Kansas opinion on a short-term rental covenant. Given how many Kansas cities have now regulated the use directly, the covenant question may simply be litigated less often than it is elsewhere — but a published answer would be the most consequential Kansas community association decision in years.

Watch, too, for a petition for review in Stonegate. We found no record of one as of September 10, 2026, and could not confirm that none was filed.