This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Simovits purchased a condo in 1993 for $130,000. Prior to closing, Simovits appeared before the Association Screening Committee so that they could explain the rules and regs. Simovits expressed his opinion that the restrictive covenant of the under 18 was illegal. In spite of this, Simovits signed a statement acknowledging the rules and agreeing to abide by them. Simovits even ran for board office and told everyone that he wanted to keep the Condos as an adult community. Simovits lost the election. Simovits then put his condo on the market in May 1997 for $187,500. They only had one interested party, but they had a minor child and Simovits decided not to negotiate with that party. Eventually, the price was lowered to $169,000, and another buyer represented by an agent expressed interest in making an offer. The buyer had three children all under 18. The buyer was told about the rule and backed away from making an offer. Simovits then contacted the association and questioned the legality of the restriction. Despite warnings from its own attorney, the association continued its policy. Simovits finally entered into a contract to sell for $145,000, but the buyers wanted the covenant waived. The association waived the covenant and the unit sold. Simovits enlisted HOPE to challenge the legality of the covenant. Simovits (P) sued for economic damages and that the covenant diminished the value of their property by $30,000. Ps also alleged other injuries such as continued mortgage payments and emotional injury damages. Hope also alleged injuries for the time and money it expended to help Ps plus monitoring and compliance costs. They also sought punitive damages.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.