425 P.3d 990
Wyo.2018Background
- Forest and Jennifer Reichert own Lot 8 and Jeff and Debra Daugherty own adjacent Lot 7 in the Western Tanager Subdivision; both deeds reference Plat No. 701 recorded Sept. 12, 1990.
- Plat 701 marks a strip of Lot 8 west of Juniper Lane as a “restricted use area” and assigns private use and maintenance responsibility for that area to Lots 4, 5, and 7 (i.e., Lot 7 receives exclusive use/maintenance of the strip on Lot 8).
- A fence existed on the restricted strip when Reicherts purchased Lot 8; both parties have at times maintained the fence and later disagreed over control, maintenance, and Reicherts’ storage of plowed snow.
- Reicherts sued to quiet title to the restricted strip and sought an order requiring removal of the fence from Lot 8’s restricted area.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Daughertys, concluding the plat restriction is clear, unambiguous, and binding on the Reicherts; the Reicherts appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reichert) | Defendant's Argument (Daugherty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Plat 701 restriction is an enforceable covenant appurtenant | The terms “private use” and “maintenance” are vague/illusory and therefore unenforceable | The plat language is clear: Lot 7 has exclusive private use and maintenance duty; Lot 8 has no use or maintenance duty | Plat language is clear and creates an enforceable covenant running with the land; affirmed |
| Vagueness / Illusory promise | Language is too indefinite to enforce specific limitations or obligations | Words have ordinary meanings; obligation to maintain is not optional | Terms “private use” and “maintenance” have plain meanings; not illusory or void for vagueness |
| Need for parol evidence / proportionality of burden and benefit | Court should consider parol evidence and Restatement principle to measure whether burden on Lot 8 is disproportionate to benefit on Lot 7 | No need; covenant facially clear and Reicherts did not raise this below | Argument based on Restatement was not raised below; appellate court declines to consider it |
| Public policy (fencing and staking) | Restriction prevents Reicherts from fencing to fence out livestock and from staking their property, conflicting with public policy | Restriction does not bar fencing of the remainder of Lot 8; no authority showing covenant violates public policy | No persuasive public-policy violation shown; claim rejected |
| Conflict with existing access easement (Watkins Easement) | Easement grants all lot owners maintenance/access across Juniper Lane; plat’s exclusive assignment conflicts with easement | Plat defines restricted area as portion of right-of-way on the northwest side of the actual road; if road moves, restricted area shrinks — no inherent conflict | No inherent or shown conflict between the Watkins Easement and Plat 701; restriction remains enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Sonnett v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 309 P.3d 799 (Wyo. 2013) (defining restrictive covenant and burden/benefit concept)
- Jacobs Ranch Coal Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC, 191 P.3d 125 (Wyo. 2008) (elements required for covenant to run with the land)
- Mathisen v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., LLC, 169 P.3d 61 (Wyo. 2007) (privity and covenants running with land requirements)
- Gumpel v. Copperleaf Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 393 P.3d 1279 (Wyo. 2017) (contract principles govern covenant interpretation; plain-meaning rule)
- Thornock v. PacifiCorp, 379 P.3d 175 (Wyo. 2016) (summary judgment standard and contract interpretation)
- Jackson Hole Builders v. Piros, 654 P.2d 120 (Wyo. 1982) (illusory promise doctrine)