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 required Developer approval for certain "external improvements" and prohibited storage of anything "obnoxious to the eye" and activities that become a "nuisance or annoyance."
- In 2004 the Korths bought a lot, submitted construction plans, and originally painted their home an earth tone after Developer discouraged blue.
- In 2014 the Korths repainted the house blue without seeking approval; Developer had by then assigned its covenant enforcement rights to the HOA.
- The HOA sued, alleging violations of article I, sections 2(a), 14, 15, and 16 and asking the court to order repainting in an earth tone; the district court found for the HOA and ordered repainting.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the covenants governed exterior paint color and whether any relevant provisions were ambiguous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HOA) | Defendant's Argument (Korths) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article I §2(a) ("other external improvement") lets Developer/HOA control repainting | Repainting is an "external improvement" and thus requires approval | §2(a) lists examples and is silent as to paint; repainting of an existing residence is not "erecting" an improvement | Repainting is not governed by §2(a); covenant language is plain and does not cover exterior paint color |
| Whether article I §15 (nuisance/annoyance) covers paint color | Blue paint is a nuisance/annoyance and thus violates §15 | §15 applies to trades/activities on a lot, not to paint color; plain language does not reach repainting | §15 does not apply to exterior paint color under its plain terms |
| Whether article I §16 ("storage" of things "obnoxious to the eye") prohibits paint color | The covenant's phrase "obnoxious to the eye" broadly covers visual offenses like paint color | §16 is limited by the qualifying word "storage," so it applies only to stored items, not paint | §16 is limited to storage; exterior paint color is not "storage" and is not covered |
| Whether covenants are ambiguous and thus construed against developer/HOA | If ambiguous, interpret in favor of maximum property use; extrinsic evidence supports HOA intent to control color | Language is unambiguous; extrinsic evidence cannot alter plain terms | Covenants were not ambiguous; plain language controls and does not regulate repainting color |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798, 862 N.W.2d 294 (2015) (definitions of "improvements" in lease/farm context)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 253 Neb. 209, 570 N.W.2d 317 (1997) (painting as improvement in marital property valuation context)
- Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522, 810 N.W.2d 714 (2012) (restrictive covenant interpretation principles)
- David Fiala, Ltd. v. Harrison, 290 Neb. 418, 860 N.W.2d 391 (2015) (ambiguity determination as a question of law)
- Frohberg Elec. Co. v. Grossenburg Implement, 297 Neb. 356, 900 N.W.2d 32 (2017) (definition/interpretation guidance cited for ambiguity analysis)