Jacklin Land Co. v. Blue Dog RV, Inc.
151 Idaho 242
Idaho2011Background
- Riverbend Commerce Park is governed by CC&Rs recorded in 1988 and amended in 1989; initially no retail use was contemplated.
- In 1990, QCA sought 17 contiguous lots and an amendment exempting them from most CC&Rs; an Agreement bound QCA to Articles 2–6 of the CC&Rs.
- KL Properties later purchased the shopping center from QCA in 2005 and later leased undeveloped lots to Blue Dog RV in 2008.
- Blue Dog began operating on four undeveloped lots in July 2008 and Jacklin sought to enjoin use arguing violations of the Agreement and CC&Rs.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment and injunction finding violations of parts (i), (ii), (iii) and Articles 3–4; judgment was appealed.
- Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, clarifying the scope of applicability of the covenants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Part (i) require a single shopping center on all seventeen lots? | Jacklin: only a first-class center on the whole property; undeveloped lots must remain vacant. | KL/Blue Dog: clause permits a first-class center on the property without mandating full occupancy. | No; a first-class center on the property suffices; not all lots must host a center. |
| Does Part (ii) apply to undeveloped lots or just the shopping center? | Jacklin: must achieve a mutually acceptable design for the shopping center as a whole. | Design/appearance requirement only governs the shopping center, not undeveloped lots. | Part (ii) does not apply to undeveloped lots; no violation found. |
| Do Articles 3 and 4 of the CC&Rs apply to Blue Dog's display/sale of RVs on undeveloped lots? | Jacklin contends Article 3 (parking) and Article 4 (signs) restrict the use/waste on the lots. | Ambiguities favor free use; Article 3 applies to parking for customers, not sales displays; Article 4 requires signs to meet standards. | Article 3 does not govern RV display; Article 4.1 signs violation upheld. |
| Can injunctive relief be granted without showing irreparable harm in enforcing covenants? | Injunctive relief may be granted for covenant breaches regardless of irreparable harm. | Injunction requires irreparable harm or lack of monetary remedy. | Irreparable harm need not be proven to obtain injunction enforcing covenants. |
| Did the district court err in awarding costs/fees on appeal or overall judgment? | Not applicable here; issue is to be determined on remand. | Challenge to costs/fees should be addressed on remand with a complete record. | Remanded; the Court vacates cost/fee awards pending further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Perkins, 129 Idaho 189 (1996) (restrictive covenants are enforceable; ambiguity resolved in favor of free use of land)
- Cazier v. Economy Cash Stores, 71 Idaho 178 (1951) (injunctions may be issued for breach of covenants without showing damages)
- Myers v. Workmen's Auto Ins. Co., 140 Idaho 495 (2004) (reviewing court considers initial brief; arguments raised in reply not considered)
- Suitts v. Nix, 141 Idaho 706 (2005) (limits on arguments raised late in briefing; standard for appellate review)