2026-09-10 · Kentucky · Courts

What happened. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, a permanent injunction and an award of $28,368.67 in fees, costs and fines against homeowners who built an outbuilding that did not match their house.¹

Roberts v. Ballard Woods Homeowners Association, Inc., No. 2025-CA-0578-MR, was rendered on 10 April 2026 on appeal from Oldham Circuit Court. Judge Cetrulo wrote for a panel including Chief Judge Thompson and Judge Karem. It is marked NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

The facts

Ballard Woods Subdivision in Oldham County was developed in 2003. The recorded Declaration of Restrictions required homeowners to obtain pre-approval for all “improvements, structures, or other appurtenances” from the developer, created an association to take over that authority, and allowed a 51% majority of homeowners to alter or abolish amendments.

The developer assigned his powers to the association's board in 2016. In February 2021 the homeowners voted to adopt amendments replacing “Developer” with “the Board” and adding a Style Conformity Amendment requiring outbuildings to match the architectural style of the primary residence.

The Roberts then built a shed that did not conform, and had not been approved. The association sued. The circuit court granted summary judgment, entered a permanent injunction, and in May 2025 entered a final order imposing the monetary award.

The waiver argument, and why it failed

The Roberts argued that the subdivision already contained non-conforming outbuildings, so the association had waived the standard. The panel drew a line the argument could not cross:

“[W]aiver could be argued if – after the Style Conformity Amendment was adopted – the HOA arbitrarily enforced that amendment, and then that arbitrary enforcement changed the fundamental character of the subdivision. Instead, the Roberts argue the amendment was waived before it was adopted. Applying waiver in such a way exceeds our caselaw.”

The circuit court's formulation, quoted with approval, was that the property owners “voted to reset the playing field for approval of outbuildings by virtue of the additional requirement.”

The standing point worth noticing

The Roberts also challenged whether the association had authority to enforce at all, because no written instrument documenting the developer's 2016 assignment appeared in the record. The court held that did not create a genuine issue of material fact: the developer had signed the 2003 Declarations, which stated his intent to assign the authority to the association, and the 2021 amendments acknowledged the transfer.

1. Roberts v. Ballard Woods Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., No. 2025-CA-0578-MR (Ky. App. 10 Apr. 2026) (not to be published) — opinion PDF ↩
2. Blair v. Sanctuary Bluff Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. (Ky. App. 20 Mar. 2026) — fee award vacated for want of a reasonableness review ↩
3. Strause v. Bradford Grove Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., No. 2024-CA-0788-MR (Ky. App. 22 Aug. 2025) ↩
4. KRS 381.788, Declarant control period — Surrender of declarant's control ↩