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 listed various "external improvements" requiring Developer approval and prohibited storage of items "obnoxious to the eye" and activities that "may be or become a nuisance or annoyance."
- In 2004 Duane and Kathryn Korth bought a lot, submitted construction plans, and originally painted their house an earth tone after Developer denied a blue color.
- In 2014 the Korths repainted their existing residence a shade of blue without seeking approval; Developer later assigned covenant enforcement rights to the HOA.
- The HOA sued, alleging violations of several covenant provisions and sought an order requiring the house be repainted an earth tone.
- The district court found repainting was an "external improvement," that the blue color was a nuisance/annoyance/obnoxious, and ordered the Korths to submit an earth-tone color and repaint; the Korths appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HOA) | Defendant's Argument (Korths) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repainting an existing residence falls within covenant term "other external improvement" (Art. I §2) | Repainting is an "improvement" and thus subject to approval; Developer previously controlled color | Repainting is an ordinary repair, not an "external improvement"; §2's list does not include paint | Repainting an existing house is not governed by §2's plain language; paint color is not an "external improvement" |
| Whether painting can be a "nuisance or annoyance" under Art. I §15 | The blue color is a nuisance/annoyance to neighbors and thus violates §15 | §15 limits "trade or activity" on a lot; paint/color is not a trade/activity covered by the clause | §15's plain language does not cover exterior paint color; neighbors' opinions cannot change that plain meaning |
| Whether paint color falls within "storage ... obnoxious to the eye" (Art. I §16) | The covenant prohibits things obnoxious to the eye; color qualifies | §16 is limited to "storage" of property/things; paint color is not "stored" | §16 is limited to storage; exterior paint color is not covered by §16 |
| Whether compliance clause (Art. I §14) was violated | Failure to follow covenants implies violation of §14 | No other law/regulation violations; §14 cannot be an independent basis absent other violations | Because no other covenant or legal violation occurred, §14 was not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798, 862 N.W.2d 294 (2015) (definitions of "improvements" in property context; used by court to analyze whether repainting is a permanent improvement)
- Tyler v. Tyler, 253 Neb. 209, 570 N.W.2d 317 (1997) (prior Nebraska decision treating exterior painting in a different context—valuation in marital property case)
- Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522, 810 N.W.2d 714 (2012) (principle that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced according to plain language)