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; the covenants list various "external improvements" requiring Developer approval and prohibit storage of things "obnoxious to the eye" and "nuisance[s] or annoyance[s]."
- In 2004 the Korths purchased a lot, submitted building plans, and originally painted their home an earth tone after Developer rejected a blue color.
- In 2014 the Korths repainted the existing residence a shade of blue without seeking approval. Developer later assigned its covenant enforcement rights to the HOA.
- The HOA sued, claiming violations of Article I §§ 2(a), 14, 15, and 16 and sought an order requiring the Korths to repaint in an approved earth tone.
- The district court found repainting was an "external improvement," the blue color was a nuisance/obnoxious, and ordered repainting; the Korths appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HOA) | Defendant's Argument (Korths) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repainting an existing residence is an "external improvement" under Art. I § 2(a) | Repainting is an improvement and thus subject to approval | Repainting is an ordinary repair to an already-erected improvement and not within § 2(a)'s plain terms | Repainting is not governed by § 2(a); the covenant’s list does not plainly cover paint color |
| Whether painting blue violated the nuisance/annoyance prohibition in Art. I § 15 | The blue paint is a nuisance/annoyance to the neighborhood | § 15 limits "trade or activity" on a lot and does not address paint color | § 15’s plain language does not apply to exterior paint color; HOA may not rely on opinions of neighbors to rewrite the text |
| Whether § 16 (prohibiting storage of things "obnoxious to the eye") covers paint color | § 16’s phrase "obnoxious to the eye" should apply broadly to visual effects, including paint | § 16 expressly limits liability to the "storage" of property or things; paint color is not "storage" | § 16 is unambiguous and limited to storage; it does not prohibit exterior paint color |
| Whether ambiguous covenant language should be construed against Developer | HOA: covenants are not ambiguous and permit control over color | Korths: any ambiguity must be construed to maximize property use and against the drafter | Court found covenants unambiguous as written and therefore applied plain language; where silent, HOA cannot impose color rules |
| Reviewability of denial of Korths’ summary judgment motion | HOA opposed summary judgment | Korths argued no genuine issue of material fact | Appellate court declined to review denial of summary judgment (not appealable) and decided merits de novo as equity case |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798 (2015) (definitions of "improvements" discussed in farm-lease context; Court distinguishes permanent improvements from ordinary repairs)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 253 Neb. 209 (1997) (contextual finding that exterior painting can be an "improvement" for marital-property valuation, distinguished here)
- Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522 (2012) (restrictive-covenant interpretation principles; enforce plain language when unambiguous)
- Mutual of Omaha Bank v. Watson, 297 Neb. 479 (2017) (appellate review of factual questions de novo in equity matters)
- Frohberg Elec. Co. v. Grossenburg Implement, 297 Neb. 356 (2017) (definition and treatment of ambiguity in documents)