Your lot can be bound by two sets of covenants at once, a Kentucky panel confirmed
Your lot can be bound by two sets of covenants at once, a Kentucky panel confirmed
2026-09-10 · Kentucky · Courts
What happened. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a permanent injunction requiring an owner to comply with a garbage-can storage rule, and in doing so confirmed something Kentucky suburbs depend on: a lot can be subject to more than one set of recorded restrictive covenants at the same time.1
Panaretos v. Villas at Claymont Springs Community Association, Inc., No. 2024-CA-1229-MR, was rendered on 5 December 2025 on appeal from Oldham Circuit Court. Judge McNeill wrote, joined by Chief Judge Thompson and Judge Acree. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
The structure
A parent tract carried restrictions recorded by its original developer. A sub-developer bought part of that tract, re-subdivided it as the Villas at Claymont Springs, and in 2017 recorded its own separate restrictions binding the new lots.
The Villas restrictions barred garbage cans outside except after 5 p.m. on collection day, requiring removal within ten hours. The owner stored hers at the side of the house and declined to move them. The association sought and obtained a permanent injunction on summary judgment.
The argument, and the answer
The owner's position was that the sub-developer could not impose new restrictions without following the parent tract's amendment procedure or obtaining the original developer's consent. The court disagreed:
“The relevant question is whether it had the authority to do so. We hold that it did.”
The second set was not an amendment of the parent tract's restrictions. It was an additional, independent layer, binding only the lots within the sub-development and imposed by the party who owned them when it recorded them. A footnote is pointed: “Implicit in Panaretos' argument is that property cannot be subject to more than one set of restrictive covenants, but she has cited no authority in support of this claim.”
The court applied the three-category framework for restrictive covenants from Black v. Birner, 179 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Ky. App. 2005).
Keep reading with the Kentucky State Pass
The rest of this analysis — what an association can actually do, the recent bills and rulings, and how Kentucky compares nationally — is for subscribers. $49/month for every Kentucky topic on HOA Weekly.
$49/month, $449/year, or a $19.99 day pass.
What you unlock
- Why this matters well beyond one owner's bins
- The questions this raises for a board in a layered community
- The other half of the holding: the injunction
and 2 more sections in detail
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Recurring monthly subscription · Cancel anytime · Need help?
Related Kentucky HOA Topics
- Panaretos v. Villas at Claymont Springs Community Ass'n, Inc., No. 2024-CA-1229-MR (Ky. App. 5 Dec. 2025) (not to be published) — opinion PDF ↩
- Steele v. SRH, LLC (Ky. App. 21 Aug. 2026) (to be published) — chain-of-title requirement ↩
- Russell v. Nunn, No. 2025-CA-1349-MR (Ky. App. 7 Aug. 2026) — five-year limitations bar under KRS 413.120 ↩
Stay on top of Kentucky HOA law
Every week: new Kentucky legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.