Estates at Prairie Ridge Homeowners Assn. v. Korth, 298 Neb. 266

Developer recorded restrictive covenants (2003) for The Estates at Prairie Ridge; covenants list examples of "external improvements" requiring Developer approval and prohibit "storage" of things "obnoxious to the eye" and activities that are a "nuisance or annoyance."
Homeowners bought a lot (2004), submitted construction plans, and initially painted their house an earth tone after Developer rejected blue.
Ten years later Homeowners repainted the house blue without seeking approval. Developer had by then assigned its covenant rights to the HOA, which sued to enforce the covenants and sought an order requiring repainting in an earth tone.
At trial the district court found painting was an "improvement," that the blue color was a nuisance/annoyance/"obnoxious to the eye," and ordered Homeowners to submit an earth-tone and repaint; Homeowners appealed.
The central legal question: whether the covenants, read in their plain language, gave Developer/HOA authority to control exterior repainting/color and whether repainting violated specific covenant provisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether repainting is an "external improvement" under Art. I §2	HOA: repainting is an "improvement" within the covenant's broad term and thus required approval	Homeowners: §2 lists examples and is silent on paint; repainting is an ordinary repair, not a listed external improvement	Repaint is not governed by §2's plain language; covenant examples do not include paint/color, so §2 does not require approval
Whether repainting is a "nuisance or annoyance" under Art. I §15	HOA: the blue color annoys neighbors and thus violates §15	Homeowners: §15 governs "trade or activity" on a lot, not paint color; neighbors' opinions cannot rewrite plain text	§15's plain language limits it to trade/activity; paint color does not fall within §15
Whether paint color falls under "storage ... obnoxious to the eye" in Art. I §16	HOA: the blue is "obnoxious to the eye," so it is prohibited	Homeowners: §16 is limited to storage of things; paint color is not stored	§16 unambiguously applies to storage; does not govern exterior paint color
Whether failing to comply with other covenant provisions violates Art. I §14	HOA: Homeowners violated other covenants, so §14 is also violated	Homeowners: they did not violate the other covenants	Because no other covenant was violated, §14 was not violated

Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798, 862 N.W.2d 294 (defining "improvements" in context of lease; court distinguishes recurring paint from permanent improvements)
Tyler v. Tyler, 253 Neb. 209, 570 N.W.2d 317 (held painting could be an "improvement" in marital property valuation context; court finds distinct context here)
Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522, 810 N.W.2d 714 (restrictive covenants interpretation principles)
Wessel v. Hillsdale Estates, Inc., 200 Neb. 792, 266 N.W.2d 62 (covenants to be interpreted in entirety; enforce plain language)
In re Claims Against Pierce Elevator, 291 Neb. 798, 868 N.W.2d 781 (extrinsic evidence not allowed to vary unambiguous covenant language)
Caruso v. Parkos, 262 Neb. 961, 637 N.W.2d 351 (denial of summary judgment is not appealable)