Fletcher v. Lone Mountain Road Ass'n, 162 Idaho 347

Background

Twin Lakes Meadows Subdivision (two phases: Surveyed Property and Eastern Property) recorded CC&Rs in 1981; CC&Rs govern maintenance of a private road (Lone Mountain Road) and allocate maintenance obligations by Exhibit B and Appendix B.
Exhibit B lists pro-rata percentages for lots in the Surveyed Property; Appendix B provides that owners in the Eastern Property are responsible for maintenance of the portion of the road within the Eastern Property (allocated by lineal frontage) once the road is extended there.
Maintenance historically performed informally by lot owners and by an unincorporated Lone Mountain Road Association formed in 2006; the Association and its 2009 Mutual Repair and Maintenance Agreement are not formed in compliance with CC&R procedures.
Fletchers (servient estate owners) sued for declaratory relief after the Association objected to their dust-control oiling and to clarify rights, duties, and assessment authority among lot owners.
District court found CC&Rs ambiguous, held that all lot owners who used the road could make reasonable repairs (but could not seek contribution absent a two-thirds vote), found waiver as to nonusing lot owners, and held dust did not create an additional burden; Fletchers appealed.
Idaho Supreme Court reversed the rulings that the CC&Rs were ambiguous and that waiver barred contribution claims; affirmed that road dust did not impose an additional burden; remanded with directions including declaring the Association lacked authority to compel maintenance or collect involuntary past assessments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CC&Rs are ambiguous regarding maintenance allocation	Fletchers: CC&Rs should be strictly applied and interpreted to allow their asserted rights (they argued ambiguity was wrongly found)	Respondents: CC&Rs ambiguous or should be read to share cost among all adjoining lots	Court: CC&Rs unambiguous — they bifurcate maintenance responsibility between Surveyed and Eastern Properties per Exhibit B and Appendix B; district court erred labeling them ambiguous
Whether lot owners who never used the road waived contribution rights	Fletchers: nonusers should be required to contribute	Respondents: long nonuse and practices show no collection; waiver occurred	Court: No factual basis for concluding waiver; contribution rights not waived because enforceable duty to assess arises only after a two‑thirds vote under Article 2.3
Whether road dust imposes an additional burden on the servient estate	Fletchers: dust (asthma) is an additional burden so dominant owners must abate	Respondents: road has long been gravel; dust is not a new burden	Court: Affirmed district court — gravel road predated Fletchers’ purchase, so dust does not constitute an additional burden
Whether the informal Lone Mountain Road Association may maintain road or collect assessments	Fletchers: Association has no authority because it was not formed per CC&Rs	Association: asserted authority via Mutual Repair Agreement and practice	Court: Agreement does not comply with CC&R formation procedures; court directed declaration that Association has no right to compel maintenance or collect involuntary past assessments

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Perkins, 129 Idaho 189, 923 P.2d 434 (contract/CC&R interpretation principles)
Shawver v. Huckleberry Estates, L.L.C., 140 Idaho 354, 93 P.3d 685 (restrictive covenants construed narrowly; courts cannot rewrite contracts)
Pinehaven Planning Bd. v. Brooks, 138 Idaho 826, 70 P.3d 664 (ambiguity defined as more than one reasonable interpretation)
Bondy v. Levy, 121 Idaho 993, 829 P.2d 1342 (task is to ascertain whether contract is reasonably subject to conflicting interpretation)
Beckstead v. Price, 146 Idaho 57, 190 P.3d 876 (dominant estate duty to maintain easement despite servient owner’s use)
Walker v. Boozer, 140 Idaho 451, 95 P.3d 69 (duty to maintain easement so as not to create additional burden on servient estate)
Gibbens v. Weisshaupt, 98 Idaho 633, 570 P.2d 870 (owner of dominant estate duty to avoid creating additional burden)
Riverside Dev. Co. v. Ritchie, 103 Idaho 515, 650 P.2d 657 (waiver ordinarily a factual issue; question of intent)
Two Jinn, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Ins., 154 Idaho 1, 293 P.3d 150 (parties may contractually reallocate duties otherwise imposed by law)
City of Bellevue v. Daly, 14 Idaho 545, 94 P. 1036 (illustrative on who bears certain burdens; not directly controlling here)