Misita v. Conn, 138 So. 3d 138

Conns filed suit in Chancery Court to enforce a deed restriction prohibiting structures on Misita’s three-acre frontage property.
Misita erected a structure on the three acres despite verbal and written objections.
The Chancery Court ruled for Conns and ordered removal of the structure.
Court of Appeals upheld enforceability of the covenant but held the structure issue unfavorably to Conns.
This Court granted certiorari and affirmed enforcement while reversing the finding that the object was not a structure.
The Court reinstates the Chancery Court’s order removing the structure as a violation of the covenant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restriction runs with the land	Conn argument: covenant runs with land; privity exists; it touches land	Misita argument: covenant does not run with land or touch the land	Yes; covenant runs with land
Whether Misita’s sign is a structure	Conn: sign is a structure under ordinary meaning	Misita: sign is not a structure	Yes; sign is a structure

Hearn v. Autumn Woods Office Park Prop. Owners Ass’n, 757 So.2d 155 (Miss. 1999) (establishes elements for covenants running with the land)
Miller v. Miller, 691 So.2d 913 (Miss. 1997) (covenants touch and concern land)
Clement v. R.L. Burns Corp., 373 So.2d 790 (Miss. 1979) (privity and succession principles apply to covenants)
Royer Homes of Mississippi, Inc. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc., 857 So.2d 748 (Miss. 2003) (contract interpretation is de novo; covenants interpreted with ordinary sense)
Stokes v. Bd. of Directors of La Cav Imp. Co., 654 So.2d 524 (Miss. 1995) (no buildings or structures restraint context cited)
Kinchen v. Layton, 457 So.2d 343 (Miss. 1984) (no structure restrictions referenced or interpreted)
Sullivan v. Kolb, 742 So.2d 771 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (definition of structure in covenant context)
Long Meadow Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Harland, 89 So.3d 573 (Miss. 2012) (standard for factual findings; contract interpretation is de novo)