324 P.3d 388
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- Neighbors Curtis and Barbara Myers sued Jacqueline Armstrong over Armstrong's dog training and boarding businesses on her Tierra Del Sol home.
- Armstrong constructed a 3,000 square foot metal outbuilding (completed October 2009) for business use on her residential lot.
- Tierra Del Sol's covenants require residential use only and prohibit commercial uses; any improvements require Architectural Control Committee (ACC) approval, which had fallen into disuse since 1984.
- Plaintiffs claimed Armstrong's building and activities violated the covenants; the district court enjoined operation and ordered removal/alteration of the building.
- Armstrong argued covenants are unenforceable without an active ACC and that changes in the subdivision undermine uniformity; she also argued plaintiffs acquiesced to prior violations.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding covenants enforceable despite a defunct ACC, and denial of relief based on changes or acquiescence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the covenants enforceable without an active ACC? | Cov. unenforceable; ACC not functioning | Without ACC, compliance impossible; covenants void or unenforceable | Covenants enforceable; court may enforce prohibitions in covenants despite no active ACC |
| Have subdivision changes negated the covenants' purpose so enforcement should be denied? | Uniformity destroyed by other violations | Changes are significant enough to extinguish covenants | Not radical; effect on uniformity insufficient to extinguish covenants |
| Did plaintiffs’ acquiescence to other violations bar enforcement here? | No acquiescence; failure to enforce minor violations does not waive rights | Acquiescence by not enforcing other violators bars enforcement | No acquiescence; district court properly refused to aplik equitable defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Rodarte, 136 N.M. 630 (2004-NMSC-035) (de novo review of covenant enforcement questions)
- Jones v. Schoellkopf, 138 N.M. 477 (2005-NMCA-124) (defunct ACC; enforceability depends on reasonable exercise of review power)
- Hourani v. Katzen, TERM UNAVAILABLE (2009) (distinguished; not controlling for covenants without ACC)
- Hanchett v. East Sunnyside Civic League, 696 S.W.2d 613 (1985) (acquiescence did not justify avoiding enforcement when violation is clear)
- Mason v. Farmer, 456 P.2d 187 (1969-NMSC-050) (radical neighborhood changes may justify non-enforcement of restrictive covenants)
- Nettles v. Ticonderoga Owners’ Ass’n, 306 P.3d 441 (2013-NMSC-030) (covenants are valuable property rights; violations do not require harsh enforcement)
- Amkco Co. v. Welborn, 21 P.3d 24 (2001-NMSC-012) (equitable power reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Heltman v. Catanach, 229 P.3d 1239 (2010-NMCA-016) (restrictive covenants may be set aside for drastic changes in the neighborhood)