Estates at Prairie Ridge Homeowners Assn. v. Korth
298 Neb. 266
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Developer recorded restrictive covenants (2003) governing "external improvements," storage of anything "obnoxious to the eye," and prohibiting activities that are a "nuisance or annoyance."
- Duane and Kathryn Korth bought a lot in 2004, submitted construction plans, and originally painted their home an earth tone after Developer denied a blue color.
- In 2014, the Korths repainted the house blue without seeking approval. Developer had assigned its covenant enforcement interests to the HOA in 2015.
- The HOA sued, seeking a declaration of willful violation and an order requiring the Korths to submit and repaint in an HOA-approved earth tone.
- The district court found repainting was an "external improvement" requiring approval and that the blue color was a nuisance/annoyance; it ordered the Korths to repaint. The Korths appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HOA) | Defendant's Argument (Korths) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repainting an existing residence is an "external improvement" requiring prior approval under art. I §2(a) | Repainting is an improvement and falls within the covenant's broad term "other external improvement." | Repainting is an ordinary repair, not an "improvement" governed by §2(a); §2(a) lists examples and does not mention paint. | Repainting an existing house is not governed by §2(a); covenant language is unambiguous and does not cover paint color. |
| Whether painting a house blue violates the covenant prohibiting anything that "may be or become a nuisance or annoyance" (art. I §15) | The color is a nuisance/annoyance to neighbors and thus prohibited. | §15 refers to trades or activities on a lot, not paint color; neighbors' opinions cannot rewrite plain text. | §15's plain language does not cover exterior paint color; HOA's argument fails. |
| Whether the covenant prohibiting "storage of any property or thing that . . . will be obnoxious to the eye" (art. I §16) controls paint color | The blue paint is "obnoxious to the eye" and thus violates §16. | §16 is limited to storage of items; paint is not "stored." | §16 is limited to storage; paint color is not governed by that provision. |
| Whether Korths violated a catchall compliance provision requiring obedience to laws and covenant rules (art. I §14) | Failure to follow covenant approval procedures constitutes noncompliance with §14. | Because no other covenant was breached, §14 was not violated. | Because no other restrictive covenant applied, §14 was not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798, 862 N.W.2d 294 (Neb. 2015) (definitions of "improvements" may distinguish permanent betterments from ordinary repairs)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 253 Neb. 209, 570 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1997) (contextual holding that exterior painting was an "improvement" for marital property valuation)
- Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522, 810 N.W.2d 714 (Neb. 2012) (restrictive covenants construed to give effect to parties' intent and enforced according to plain language)
Outcome
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the covenants were unambiguous and did not govern repainting or paint color. The judgment for the HOA was reversed and the case remanded with directions to enter judgment for the Korths.