449 P.3d 983
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Kenneth Woodward built a detached metal "pole" garage on his lot in Country Haven Subdivision; he obtained a city building permit after the city inspector advised ACC approval was unnecessary because no ACC had ever functioned.
- Neighbors Robert and Lorraine Vanderwood sued, alleging violations of the recorded Declaration of Building and Use Restrictions: failure to obtain ACC approval, nonconforming materials (metal siding/roof), and violation of side-yard setback (10 ft required; garage placed ~5 ft from the line).
- No ACC ever operated in the subdivision; no homeowner had sought or obtained ACC approval for any construction since recording of the Restrictions; many owners built outbuildings without ACC review and with little prior complaint.
- District court: held ACC preapproval requirement was abandoned but upheld other Restrictions; found garage violated material and setback provisions and ordered garage disassembled/moved and awarded attorney fees to Vanderwoods.
- Utah Court of Appeals: reversed in part—held ACC preapproval abandoned (and thus harmony/material-review criteria tied to ACC inapplicable), held material restrictions in Part B.3 apply only to dwellings (so metal garage allowed), affirmed that garage violated setback as constructed, vacated injunction and fee award, and remanded for factfinding on abandonment of setback covenant and, if not abandoned, balancing of equities before injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vanderwood) | Defendant's Argument (Woodward) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACC preapproval requirement is abandoned | ACC requirement remains enforceable | ACC preapproval has been abandoned because no ACC ever functioned and no approvals were sought | ACC preapproval (Part B.2) abandoned in full; severable from other provisions |
| Whether material restrictions (siding/roof) apply to outbuildings | Part B.3 materials and roofing rules bind all structures in subdivision | Part B.3 titled and textually limited to "dwellings," so it does not apply to detached garage | Part B.3 applies only to dwellings; metal detached garage does not violate Part B.3 |
| Whether garage violates setback requirement | Garage is ~5 ft from south property line, violating 10 ft side-yard setback | Dispute over actual location and adequacy of evidence; setback covenant abandoned | Vanderwoods produced admissible evidence garage sits ~5 ft from line; court affirmed setback violation but remanded unresolved question of whether setback covenant is abandoned |
| Whether injunction and attorney fees were proper | Injunction required to enforce Restrictions; prevailing party entitled to fees under Restrictions | Injunctive relief improper without balancing equities for an "innocent" actor; fee award dependent on prevailing-party determination | Vacated district court injunction and fee award; directed remand to determine abandonment of setback covenant and, if enforceable, apply balancing-of-equities before injunctive relief; prevailing-party/fees to be reassessed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Swenson v. Erickson, 998 P.2d 807 (Utah 2000) (framework for abandonment of restrictive covenants and three-factor test)
- Fink v. Miller, 896 P.2d 649 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (abandonment analyzed provision-by-provision; evidence must be clear and convincing)
- Carrier v. Lindquist, 37 P.3d 1112 (Utah 2001) (standard for appellate review of injunctions in restrictive covenant context)
- Smith v. Simas, 324 P.3d 667 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (innocent defendant doctrine and balancing-of-equities before injunctive relief)
- Anderson Dev. Co. v. Tobias, 116 P.3d 323 (Utah 2005) (summary judgment standards and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Salo v. Tyler, 417 P.3d 581 (Utah 2018) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)