Austin Brook and Austin Park Property Owners Association, Inc. v. William E. Nabors and Sandra R. Nabors

── Austin Brook and Austin Park Property Owners Association, Inc. v. William E. Nabors and Sandra R. Nabors ── Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Rel: June 5, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ CL-2025-0515 _________________________ Austin Brook and Austin Park Property Owners Association, Inc. v. William E. Nabors and Sandra R. Nabors Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court (CV-23-901009) PER CURIAM. Austin Brook and Austin Park Property Owners Association, Inc. ("the POA"), a nonprofit corporation and the governing body of a residential subdivision in Daphne, appeals from a judgment entered by CL-2025-0515 the Baldwin Circuit Court regarding the enforcement of certain restrictive covenants. Procedural History Sandra R. Nabors purchased property from Annalea Rolle in the Austin Park II subdivision ("the subdivision") in 2013. The deed provided that the conveyance was subject to "[r]estrictive covenants as contained in instruments recorded in Instrument No. 916523, Instrument No. 1010144, Instrument No. 1055892 and Instrument No. 1174469." The deed from Rolle stated that "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set her hand and seals on September 5, 2013." (Capitalization in original.) On August 18, 2018, Sandra transferred her interest in the property, pursuant to a quitclaim deed, to herself and her husband, William E. Nabors. On August 14, 2023, the POA sued the Naborses, alleging that they had failed to comply with the covenants applicable to the property by regrading their lot and by installing a concrete patio, an aboveground pool, and a fence without the approval of the subdivision's architectural- review committee. On September 22, 2023, the Naborses filed an answer, denied that the POA had stated a valid claim, and asserted certain 2 CL-2025-0515 affirmative defenses, including waiver, estoppel, harassment, the running of the applicable statute of limitations, and discriminatory enforcement. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a final judgment stating: "This matter came before the Court on April 7, 2025. Judgment is entered on behalf of the Plaintiff, [the POA,] and against the Defendants, [the Naborses], as follows: "1. The [Naborses] shall remove or lower the deck and/or railing surrounding their swimming pool such that it is concealed by [their] privacy fence while looking from street level. "2. [The Naborses] are ordered to maintain the preventive measure they have taken to address the erosion issues. "3. A judgment is entered in favor of [the POA] and against the [Naborses] in the amount of $6,053.02 for the recovery of which let execution issue. "4. All other relief requested is hereby denied. "5. Costs were prepaid." On May 14, 2025, the POA filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. That same day, the POA filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $15,738. On June 3, 2025, the trial court denied the postjudgment motion but granted the POA's motion for an award of attorneys' fees. On June 4, 2025, the trial court 3 CL-2025-0515 entered an amended judgment to include the amount of $15,