Estates at Prairie Ridge Homeowners Assn. v. Korth
298 Neb. 266
Neb.2017Background
- Developer recorded restrictive covenants for The Estates at Prairie Ridge in 2003; covenants restrict certain “external improvements,” nuisances/annoyances, and storage of things “obnoxious to the eye.”
- Duane and Kathryn Korth bought a lot in 2004, submitted construction plans, and initially painted their house an earth tone after Developer objected to blue.
- In 2014, the Korths repainted their existing house a shade of blue without seeking approval from Developer or the HOA. Developer later assigned its covenant enforcement rights to the HOA.
- HOA sued seeking declarations that the Korths willfully violated covenants and an order requiring repainting in an earth tone; the district court found for the HOA, concluding repainting was an "external improvement" and the blue color was a nuisance.
- The Korths appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the covenants’ plain language governed exterior paint color and whether the provisions were ambiguous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HOA) | Defendant's Argument (Korths) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repainting an existing residence is an “external improvement” under Art. I §2 | Repainting is an improvement or betterment subject to approval | Repainting is an ordinary repair of an already-erected improvement and §2’s examples don’t include paint | Repainting is not governed by §2’s plain language; §2 is silent on paint color, so no violation |
| Whether repainting can be a "nuisance or annoyance" under Art. I §15 | The blue color is a nuisance/annoyance and thus prohibited | §15 regulates trades/activities on a lot, not paint color; opinions of neighbors cannot alter plain text | §15’s plain language does not cover exterior paint color; no violation |
| Whether "obnoxious to the eye" storage clause in Art. I §16 applies to paint color | The clause prohibits things obnoxious to the eye generally, including color | §16 limits prohibition to the storage of property/things; paint color is not "storage" | §16 is limited to storage; it does not govern exterior paint color |
| Whether Art. I §14 (comply with laws) was violated | Failure to follow covenant procedures means §14 violated | No separate statutory/rule violation; §14 was invoked only as cumulative | Because other covenant violations were not established, §14 was not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798 (court’s broad definitions of "improvements" in lease context) (used to argue scope of “improvements,” but court distinguished its context)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 253 Neb. 209 (considered painting an exterior as an improvement in marital property valuation context) (distinguished as different context)
- Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522 (restrictive covenants enforced by plain language) (authoritative on covenant construction)
Conclusion: The Nebraska Supreme Court held the covenants were unambiguous and did not cover repainting an existing residence; judgment reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the homeowners.