Tennessee court reverses HOA win over a historic tile roof
Tennessee court reverses HOA win over a historic tile roof
2026-09-19 · Tennessee · Courts
A Tennessee association that won summary judgment and attorney's fees against an owner who refused to replace a concrete-tile roof lost both on appeal. Hurley v. Green Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc., No. W2024-00556-COA-R3-CV, was filed on April 24, 2025 by Judge Kenny Armstrong for a Western Section panel, on appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County.1
The decision is the clearest statement in recent Tennessee appellate practice on how an architectural standard phrased in general terms operates against a property that does not resemble its neighbours.
The dispute
The association demanded that the owner replace the roof on the main house with shingles. The owner sued for a declaratory judgment and an injunction; the association counterclaimed, won summary judgment, and was awarded attorney's fees and costs in March 2024. The trial court separately dismissed the owner's declaratory action for failure to join all owners as necessary parties.
The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of the owner's complaint, reversed the summary judgment on the counter-complaint, reversed the fee award, and denied the association's request for appellate fees.
Reasonableness as applied is a fact question
The court's disposition rests on a single conclusion, stated flatly:
“In sum, the record is replete with disputes of facts that negate the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the HOA, and we reverse its decision.”
What those disputes were about is what makes the case useful. The property predates the development, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and carries the only concrete-tile roof in the subdivision. A roofer had opined that the existing roof was sound. Against an architectural standard requiring work to be “in keeping with other lots,” the court framed the live question this way:
“These facts create dispute as to whether Mrs. Hurley's home should be held to a standard ‘in keeping with other lots,’ when her Property has never been ‘in keeping with other lots.’ … The unique nature of this Property goes to the question of whether the HOA's mandate to replace the Main House roof was reasonable.”
The fee award fell with the judgment
The association's fee award was not separately attacked on its merits; it went because its foundation went. The court's disposition sets them out together: the dismissal of the owner's declaratory complaint vacated, the summary judgment on the counter-complaint reversed, the March 15, 2024 fee order reversed, and the request for appellate attorney's fees denied.
That sequencing is the practical point. Where a declaration contains a prevailing-party fee clause — and most Tennessee declarations do — the fee exposure tracks the merits ruling. A summary judgment that does not survive appeal takes the fee award with it, and the association carries its own appellate costs.
What "reasonable" is doing here
Tennessee has no general planned-community statute, so an association's architectural authority comes from the declaration and is construed under ordinary covenant rules. Where the standard is stated in general terms — “reasonably satisfactory,” “in keeping with other lots,” “harmonious” — the question is not only what the committee decided but whether the decision was reasonable as applied.
Hurley holds that on these facts that question could not be resolved on the papers. The property's uniqueness was not a defence the court weighed and rejected; it was a reason the case had to be tried.
The general lesson is procedural as much as substantive. An association seeking summary judgment on a generally worded standard is asking a court to find the application reasonable as a matter of law, and evidence that the property sits outside the pattern the standard describes defeats that.
The necessary-party trap is unresolved
A second holding is easy to miss and may matter more often. The trial court had dismissed the owner's declaratory judgment action for failure to join all subdivision owners as necessary parties. The Court of Appeals vacated that dismissal because the order did not explain its reasoning.
The underlying question — when an owner seeking a declaration about a covenant must join every other owner bound by it — was therefore not answered. It remains open in Tennessee, and it is a live obstacle for an owner who wants a declaration rather than a defence.
What to watch next
The case was reversed and the matter returned to the Chancery Court, so the outcome between these parties is not established by the appellate decision and nothing here predicts it.
We were not able to confirm whether an application for permission to appeal was filed with the Tennessee Supreme Court under Rule 11, so the decision should not be treated as final for that purpose without checking.
On the legislative side, the 114th General Assembly introduced no bill on architectural review, exterior standards, or association enforcement procedure in either of its sessions, and it adjourned on April 23, 2026. The standard that governs a Tennessee architectural dispute is still the one written into the declaration.
Related Tennessee HOA Topics
Stay on top of Tennessee HOA law
Every week: new Tennessee legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.