The Missouri Supreme Court has affirmed a decision made by a judge in the Jefferson County Circuit Court. The judge ruled that a Hindu religious group is obligated to follow the rules set by a neighborhood association in House Springs. Additionally, the group must also contribute towards the legal fees that were accumulated during a lengthy 17-year land dispute.
The Supreme Court, in a comprehensive 18-page decision on December 10, affirmed Judge Victor J. Melenbrink’s ruling in the Jefferson County Div. 5 Circuit. The ruling mandates that Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis must adhere to the Millstone Property Owners Association’s regulations. These regulations encompass the payment of annual assessments and compliance with lot maintenance guidelines for the 138.25-acre subdivision situated along Byrnesville Road, directly opposite the Northwest Jefferson County Sports Complex.
The Supreme Court has also concurred that the religious group is obligated to pay the association $50,000 in legal fees resulting from the court battle.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling of the lower court that the lake situated on the property should be regarded as common ground. Consequently, the proprietors of Fogarty Farms, who established the neighborhood association, are prohibited from removing the lake.
The property was organized into a residential subdivision in 2004.
In 2007, a company called Ananda acquired the land from Essex with the goal of constructing a Hindu worship center. The proposed center would comprise of 107 residential units, two dormitories, a temple, a continuing education center, a restaurant/souvenir shop, a dining hall, a meeting center, and 512 parking spaces. Legal disputes regarding the development of the land emerged and have since been ongoing. These details are recorded in the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Department records.
In 2008, Ananda sold three lots to Dhyanapeetam after the county rejected plans for the worship center development. The rejection came about when a citizens group voiced their opposition to the project.
Ananda constructed a warehouse dedicated to religious statues, known as deities, a year before selling the lots to Dhyanapeetam.
According to court filings, the warehouse served as a sacred space where people gathered for religious ceremonies. They would invite a spiritual leader called Swamiji to conduct a special event known as prana pratishtha, which was considered rare and sacred. This event was believed to infuse divine energy into the deities present in the temple.
The brief states that the religious leader is officially known as the Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism, Jagatguru Mahasanndhanam His Divine Holiness Bhagavan Nithyananda Paramashivam.
After Swamiji energized the deities, the brief emphasized the importance of providing proper care for them through daily religious rituals.
According to Judge Robin Ransom of the Supreme Court, the Nithyananda members used to visit the carved stone deities on a daily basis until sometime in 2016. They also utilized the lake lot, which was located next to Nithyananda’s lots, for their spiritual activities.
In the month of October 2015, Ananda transferred the remaining 21 subdivision lots to Fogarty Farms LLC through a general warranty deed. Bill and Lauren Fogarty, who are connected to Fogarty Farms, were involved in the organization of the citizens group that opposed the establishment of the Hindu worship center, as mentioned in the brief.
In June 2016, after acquiring the 21 lots, Fogarty Farms established the Millstone Property Owners Association. As part of this development, Fogarty Farms implemented the “First Amendment to Millstone Subdivision Restrictions.”
According to court records, the amendment aimed to eliminate the lake lot as common ground and instead allow it to be sold as a separate lot. Additionally, the amendment modified the restrictions that were previously imposed on the lots.
In June 2017, the association filed a lawsuit against Nithyananda, claiming that he had violated the restrictions by not paying assessments, neglecting the maintenance of the three lots, and failing to use them for residential purposes. The association aimed to foreclose the liens associated with these properties, as stated in court documents.
According to court records, Nithyananda has filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief. He argues that Fogarty Farms does not have a valid assignment of developer rights from Essex, and therefore, does not have the authority to establish a board of directors capable of levying an assessment. Nithyananda also requests the Circuit Court to set aside the transfer of the lake lot to Fogarty Farms.
In court filings, Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam asserts that they were the original owners of the property and that Fogarty Farms was fully aware of its intended purpose as a temple complex when they acquired the land.
According to Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam, Fogarty Farms has been using the lots for purposes other than what they were intended for. Instead of using the land for their designated purposes, the company has been organizing various corporate events, such as stages, fireworks, bands, monster trucks, and drones.
According to the filing, it was stated by the group that Fogarty had no intention of developing the land for single-family dwellings.
According to Ransom’s decision, the initial property restrictions were specifically designed to ensure the preservation of the right to enforce compliance in the future.
According to Ransom, the religious group’s lots were bound by the restrictions, even if some provisions may not have been strictly enforced in the past.
In her decision, she emphasized that the lake would continue to be regarded as common ground. She noted that when lot owners were initially enticed by the promise of specific common ground areas as stated in the subdivision plat, it goes against public policy to allow a developer to unilaterally modify the nature of that common ground, even if the developer possesses such authority through covenants.
Ananda had reasonably expected that Nithyananda would be granted access to the lake lot, considering the shared intention of transforming the subdivision into a temple complex, as stated in the decision.