Estates at Prairie Ridge Homeowners Assn. v. Korth
298 Neb. 266
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Developer recorded restrictive covenants (2003) for The Estates at Prairie Ridge; covenants restricted certain "external improvements," storage of items "obnoxious to the eye," and prohibited trades/activities that may be a "nuisance or annoyance."
- Homeowners (Korths) purchased a lot in 2004, submitted construction plans, and initially painted their house an earth tone after Developer disapproved blue.
- Ten years later the Korths repainted the existing house a shade of blue without seeking approval; Developer had assigned its covenant enforcement rights to the HOA in 2015.
- HOA sued, seeking a declaration of willful violation and an order requiring repainting in an earth tone approved by the HOA; district court found the repainting was an "improvement" and the blue color was a nuisance, ordering repainting.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the covenants (sections 2(a), 14, 15, 16) unambiguously authorized control over exterior paint color and whether repainting violated those covenants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HOA) | Defendant's Argument (Korth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repainting an existing residence is an "external improvement" under Art. I §2(a) | Repainting is an "improvement" and thus subject to approval under the covenant's broad "external improvement" language | Covenant list and plain text do not mention paint; repainting of an erected house is an ordinary repair, not a new improvement | Repainting an existing house is not governed by §2(a); covenant examples do not include paint or color, so §2(a) is inapplicable |
| Whether painting can be a "nuisance or annoyance" under Art. I §15 | Blue color clashes with neighborhood and thus constitutes a nuisance/annoyance prohibited by §15 | §15 limits its scope to trades or activities on a lot; color change is not a trade/activity described by the plain language | §15 does not reach exterior paint color; residents' opinions cannot expand plain covenant language |
| Whether paint constitutes "storage" of things "obnoxious to the eye" under Art. I §16 | The blue paint is obnoxious to the eye and therefore prohibited by §16 | §16 explicitly limits to "storage," which paint/color is not; covenant must be read as written | §16 is limited to stored property; it does not prohibit paint/color |
| Whether §14 (comply with laws/permits) was violated by repainting | HOA contends §14 is violated because other covenant breaches occurred | Korths argue no statutory or regulatory noncompliance; only dispute is covenant interpretation | Because no other covenant violations found, §14 was not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798, 862 N.W.2d 294 (discussion of "improvements" vs. ordinary repairs)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 253 Neb. 209, 570 N.W.2d 317 (contextual treatment of exterior painting for marital property valuation)
- Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522, 810 N.W.2d 714 (restrictive covenants interpretation principles)
- David Fiala, Ltd. v. Harrison, 290 Neb. 418, 860 N.W.2d 391 (ambiguity determination in covenant/contract interpretation)