Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.

COLLEEN EIKMEIER AND WILLIAM S. LOVE, Appellants, v. G RANITE SPRINGS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A MISSOURI NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORP., Responden t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Opinion issued January 23, 2026 No. SC101161 APPEAL FROM TH E CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY The Honorable Daniel R. Wichmer, Judge Colleen Eikmeier and William Love ("homeowners") purchased a lot in a subdivision subject to covenants banning solar panels. Shortly thereafter, the legislature enacted a statute proscribing any covenant from limiting or prohibiting installation of solar panels. The homeowners sought declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking a declaration, among other things, the covenants ran afoul of the statute. The circuit court denied the homeowners relief, finding the statute could not apply to preexisting covenants. This Court reverses the circuit court's judgment and enters judgment in the homeowners' favor.

2

Factual and Procedural Background In 2003, the developer of Granite Springs, a subdivision in Greene County, recorded its declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions applicable to the subdivision. The covenants were created "to preserve and enhance the value, desirability and attractiveness of the development and improvements constructed thereon." One restriction provided: "No television, radio, citizens band, short wave or other antenna, nor any satellite dish greater than 18 [inches] in diameter, solar panel, clothesline or pole, or other unsightly projection shall be attached to the exterior of any residence or erected on any Lot." In 2021, the homeowners purchased a lot in the subdivision and later constructed a residence. The covenant prohibiting solar panels was in effect, and the homeowners were aware of the restriction. They communicated with the subdivision's homeowners' association ("HOA") in an attempt to change the covenant addressing solar panels. The HOA's president responded that, while discussions about the topic had taken place, the restriction would remain. The homeowners became aware of Senate Bill 820, legislation signed by the governor in June 2022, that they believed would prohibit a homeowners' association from banning solar panels. The homeowners obtained a proposal from a company to install solar panels and presented that proposal to the HOA. In early 2023, the HOA responded with guidance. It would allow solar panels to be installed, but solar panels visible from the street would not be permitted. The homeowners obtained estimates for alternative solar installation designs. As explained in more detail later, to reach approximately the same

3

production level with panels on non-street-facing portions of the roof, more panels were required with a higher upfront cost. In August 2023, the homeowners filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. As relevant to this appeal, they sought a declaration that any of the subdivision's restrictions limiting or prohibiting, or having the effect of limiting or prohibiting, the installation of solar panels on the rooftop of structures in the subdivision violated section 442.404.3. 1 The homeowners sought a further declaration that any portion of the HOA's policy adversely affecting the cost or efficiency of solar devices was impermissible. The homeowners requested the circuit court declare they be permitted to proceed with the installation plans set forth in their proposal. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the homeowners a preliminary injunction. Following briefing and a second hearing, the circuit court entered judgment in the HOA's favor. The circuit court found "retrospective application of the [new statute] results in an impairment of the contract between the HOA and its residents." The circuit court determined the statute "is to be applied prospectively, meaning affecting any newly-created subdivision [homeowners' association] who file original [covenants] after January 1, 2023." The homeowners appeal. 2

1 All statutory references are to RSMo Supp. 2022, unless otherwise noted. 2 After an opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.

4

Standard of Review In reviewing an action seeking a declaratory judgment or an injunction, this Court's review "is the same as in any court-tried case: the judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law." Allsberry v. Flynn, 628 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Mo. banc 2021). A claim the circuit court erroneously declared or applied the law is reviewed de novo. Id. Analysis The homeowners raise two points on appeal. First, they argue the circuit court erred in determining section 442.404.3 applies prospectively in the narrow manner found by the court. Second, they contend the circuit court erred in analyzing retrospectivity. "[S]tatutes are presumed to operate prospectively." Cedar Cnty. Comm'n v. Parson, 661 S.W.3d 766, 774 (Mo. banc 2023). This presumption "controls unless the legislative intent that they be given retroactive operation clearly appears from the express language of the act or by necessary or unavoidable implication." Lincoln Credit Co. v. Peach, 636 S.W.2d 31, 34 (Mo. banc 1982). A statute is permitted to have retroactive operation in the sense that it can "look[] or act[] backward from its effective date." Cedar Cnty. Comm'n, 661 S.W.3d at 774 (quotation omitted). But, in Missouri, a law cannot be "retrospective in its operation." Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 13. The difference between "retroactive" and "retrospective" is muddled in caselaw. See Mo. Real Estate Comm'n v. Rayford, 307 S.W.3d 686, 690 (Mo. App. 2010) (noting "the terms are often misused by both bench and bar"). The confusion on the topic is no

5

doubt exacerbated by the common understanding of the terms and Missouri's somewhat unique constitutional provision explicitly barring retrospective laws. 3 As one commentator stated: A retroactive statute operates legally for a period of time that exists before the statute's effective date. In effect, a retroactive statute changes pre- existing legal rules, statutory or common law, that were operative prior to the enactment of new legislation. The result is that the legal rules in existence before the statute are either voided, affirmed, or modified by the new statute as of its effective date. Gregory J. DeMars, Retrospectivity and Retroactivity of Civil Legislation Reconsidered, 10 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 253, 255 (1983) (footnote omitted). "A retrospective statute, like a retroactive one, operates backwards, but unlike a retroactive statute, it attaches new future legal consequences to an event that occurred before the statute was passed." Id. at 256. This understanding comports with Missouri's distinction between the two terms. Graham Paper Co. v. Gehner, 59 S.W.2d 49, 50 (Mo. banc 1933) ("A new or an amendment of an existing statute which reaches back and creates a new or different obligation, duty, or burden which did not exist before the new law itself became effective, or which makes the obligation or burden begin at a date earlier than the date of going into effect of the law itself, is retroactive in its operation and unconstitutional [i.e., retrospective]. A law is retroactive in its operation when it looks or acts backward from its effective date, and if it has the same effect as to past transactions or considerations as to future ones, then it is retrospective.").

3 "Only a handful of state constitutions ... prohibit the passage of laws that are retrospective in their operation." State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Mo. banc 2013), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Harris, 675 S.W.3d 202 (Mo. banc 2023).

6

Despite inconsistent use of terminology, Missouri caselaw has been steadfast in holding "[a] law is retrospective in operation if it takes away or impairs vested or substantial rights acquired under existing laws or imposes new obligations, duties, or disabilities with respect to past transactions." Cedar Cnty. Comm'n, 661 S.W.3d at 774 (emphasis and quotation omitted); see also Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Villa Capri Homes, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 327, 332 (Mo. banc 1985) ("This constitutional ban against retrospective laws applies only when the statute takes away or impairs any existing vested right."); Squaw Creek Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Turney, 138 S.W. 12, 16 (Mo. 1911) ("A retrospective law is one which creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability with respect to transactions or considerations already past. It must give to something already done a different effect from that which it had when it transpired."). Such retrospective operation is generally impermissible under our constitution. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 13. The legislature intended section 442.404.3 to apply to new covenants and those covenants in existence prior to its effective date In May 2022, SB No. 820, which repealed and reenacted section 442.404, was truly agreed to and finally passed. The reenacted version of section 442.404 added the following provisions to the statute: (1) No deed restrictions, covenants, or similar binding agreements running with the land shall limit or prohibit, or have the effect of limiting or prohibiting, the installation of solar panels or solar collectors on the rooftop of any property or structure.

(2) A homeowners' association may adopt reasonable rules, subject to any applicable statutes or ordinances, regarding the placement of solar panels or solar collectors to the extent that those rules do not prevent the

7

installation of the device, impair the functioning of the device, restrict the use of the device, or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device.

(3) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only with regard to rooftops that are owned, controlled, and maintained by the owner of the individual property or structure. Section 442.404.3. The repeal and reenactment of section 442.404 became effective on January 1, 2023. 2022 Mo. Laws 1095. Statutes normally take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session. Mo. Const. art. III, sec. 29; section 1.130, RSMo 2016. Instead of having the statute become effective near the end of August 2022, the legislature delayed section 442.404's effective date until the start of the next year. Section 442.404 was the only provision of SB 820 with a delayed effective date. The homeowners argue the circuit court erred in finding the statute had only a narrow, prospective application. According to the homeowners, the necessary and unavoidable implication of the statute and its delayed effective date is that the legislature intended for the statute to apply "retroactively." The homeowners point to the legislature's use of a more than four-month delay before the statute became effective to argue "the [l]egislature intended for the statute to operate retroactively to prevent future enforcement of existing prohibitions on the installation of solar panels." 4 According to the homeowners,