Rick and Terri Wimer, Curtis and Cynthia Li, Harv Gloe, Harold Reimler and Harold Reimler Trustee of the Reimler Family Trust v. Jerry and Cheri Cook and Cook's Construction, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company
2016 WY 29
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- In 1978 the Irvines recorded restrictive covenants for the Phillips Lane area to preserve single-family residential and agricultural uses; covenants limit each residential tract to one detached single-family dwelling and prohibit non‑permanent residences (e.g., RVs). An express severability clause appears in Article V.
- The Cooks purchased a 20‑acre parcel in 2011, had it surveyed into ten 2‑acre lots, installed utilities/septic on several lots, obtained addresses, and placed one house for a relative on one lot while planning to place/rent additional single‑family structures, modular homes, and allow RV living on other lots. County zoning requires the Cooks to retain ownership of the whole 20 acres (they may not sell individual 2‑acre lots).
- Neighbors (the Wimers and others) sued the Cooks seeking an injunction to prohibit placing multiple dwellings on the 20‑acre parcel as violating the covenants; the Cooks counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that the covenants had been abandoned by acquiescence.
- After a bench trial the district court found the covenants had not been abandoned, and concluded the Cooks’ development plan did not violate the covenants (but renting lots for RVs did). The Wimers appealed; the Cooks cross‑appealed the abandonment ruling.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed that the covenants were not abandoned, but reversed the district court on the interpretation of “parcel/subdivision,” holding the 20‑acre tract remained a single parcel under the covenants and thus may contain only one single‑family dwelling; the Cooks’ plan to place ten dwellings on the single tract violated Article III, ¶1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wimers) | Defendant's Argument (Cooks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether covenants were abandoned by acquiescence in repeated violations | Numerous, longstanding covenant violations show radical, permanent change to neighborhood that nullifies covenants | Violations are minor or unrelated; covenants not abandoned and remain enforceable | Court: No abandonment; violations were not radical and permanent; severability clause limits relevant violations |
| Whether the Cooks may subdivide the 20‑acre parcel into multiple residential "parcels" for purposes of placing multiple single‑family dwellings while retaining ownership | The 20‑acre tract remains one parcel; covenant limits to one dwelling per parcel so multiple dwellings violate covenants | Article II ¶6 allows subdivision into parcels <20 acres so long as owner does not sell/convey—surveying and creating lots permitted while retaining ownership | Court: "Subdivision" contemplates sale/conveyance; the tract remains one parcel under covenants; placing multiple dwellings on the single tract violates Article III ¶1; district court reversed on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Wolititch, 341 P.3d 421 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for abandonment by acquiescence; factual inquiry whether violations caused radical, permanent change)
- Hammons v. Table Mountain Ranches Owners’ Ass’n, 72 P.3d 1153 (Wyo. 2003) (abandonment requires violations so fundamental they defeat covenant purpose)
- Keller v. Branton, 667 P.2d 650 (Wyo. 1983) (burden on party asserting abandonment; changes must be permanent)
- Omohundro v. Sullivan, 202 P.3d 1077 (Wyo. 2009) (covenant interpretation is a question of law; apply contract principles and plain meaning)
- Anderson v. Bommer, 926 P.2d 959 (Wyo. 1996) (zoning approvals do not override private restrictive covenants)
- Shaffer v. Winhealth Partners, 261 P.3d 708 (Wyo. 2011) (contract interpretation rules disfavor readings that render provisions meaningless)