Polo Golf & Country Club Homeowners' Association v. Rymer
Annotate this CasePolo Golf and Country Club (a homeowners association), the Rymers (homeowners in the subdivision), and Forsyth County, all disputed which party was responsible for repairing the stormwater facilities in a subdivision. The stormwater facilities lying beneath the lots in the subdivision were not expressly dedicated to the county when originally built; and the county disclaimed ownership of any stormwater facility that did not lie under the county's streets. Polo did not own any stormwater facilities in the subdivision. Polo's covenants, recorded in 1987, provided that each homeowner had to maintain and repair the structures on his own property. The county enacted a stormwater management ordinance in 1996. In 2004, the Department of Engineering enacted an addendum contemplated by the ordinance. The section of the addendum at issue in this case required homeowners associations to take responsibility for stormwater management facilities on their property. The Rymers owned a house and lot in the Polo Fields subdivision. Because the interior of the Rymers' home was flooded on a number of occasions, the Rymers demanded that Polo and the county take action to fix the stormwater system. Polo responded by notifying the Rymers that it gave notice to the county that "neither the individual homeowner nor [Polo] should be held responsible for the maintenance." Polo later informed the Rymers that it would be selecting a contractor to repair the stormwater facilities in the entire subdivision, including the facilities on the Rymers' property, at Polo's expense. However, the repairs were never made and the Rymers experienced additional flooding. At no point prior to litigation did Polo assert that the Rymers were responsible for repairs to the stormwater facilities on the Rymers' lot. The Rymers brought suit against Polo and the county. Polo counterclaimed seeking, among other things, an injunction to compel the Rymers to repair the stormwater facilities under their property pursuant to the covenants. Polo also cross-claimed against the county, asserting the county could not require it to maintain the stormwater facilities because the addendum applied to new development, not Polo. Thereafter, pipes in the vicinity of the Rymers' property failed completely, causing flooding and sinkholes on other lots in the subdivision and additional flooding on the Rymers' property. The county issued a notice to comply and warning to Polo, directing Polo to make necessary repairs in the subdivision within 30 days. Polo did not make the repairs and the county issued a notice of violation, but no fines or citations were issued. Polo filed a separate declaratory judgment action against the county seeking a declaration that the addendum impairs the obligation of contracts and was unconstitutional and invalid. It also sought injunctive relief to prohibit enforcement of the addendum. The Rymers moved to intervene in that case; the motion was granted; and the trial court consolidated the two cases. After the parties filed motions and crossmotions for summary judgment, the trial court denied the Rymers' and Polo's summary judgment motions, but granted the county's summary judgment motion, finding the addendum can be enforced against Polo. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in denying Polo's motion for summary judgment in its dispute with the Rymers, but that the court erred in granting summary judgment for the county.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.