Wagner v. Woodward, 270 P.3d 21

Wagners own Lot 2 and Woodward owns Lot 1; restrictive covenants run with both parcels and govern building envelopes, view, and fences.
Covenants include: (1) 90-foot building envelope from Lot 1 north boundary, (2) Lot 1 for single-family use, (3) preserve trees/shrubs along the north boundary driveway, (4) no fencing/trees/shrubs that interfere with river view without both owners’ written consent.
Woodward remodeled and extended his deck southward in June 2009 and erected a 30-inch, two-rail split-cedar fence along the east and west boundaries in July–August 2009.
Wagners filed suit October 2009 seeking a declaration that covenants apply and requesting removal of the deck and fences; they sought attorney fees and costs.
District Court held covenant 1 did not apply to fences, deck violated covenants 1, lochner-like laches barred enforcement for eaves, and no fees were awarded.
On appeal, court affirms in part (fences) and reverses the deck-removal order; laches upheld for eaves; final judgment denies fees; no further issues addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interpret covenants 1 and 4 to fences.	Wagner argues cov1 applies to any structure extending beyond 90 feet; cov4 requires consent for fences.	Woodward argues cov1 does not cover fences; cov4 governs fences and requires consent only if view is interfered.	Covenant 1 does not apply to fences; covenant 4 controls.
Deck extension compliance with covenants.	Wagner contends deck extended outside 90-foot envelope and violated cov1.	Woodward contends eaves/ deck alignment complied or were moot due to prior posture.	Deck extension not required to be removed; laches applied to eaves but not to deck.
Application of laches to enforcement of covenants.	Wagners delayed enforcement; should bar action only where prejudicial.	Woodward relied on lack of timely enforcement and plaintiff’s pre-suit notices were deficient.	Laches applied to eaves but did not bar relief for the deck; overall laches applied to part of the claim.

Brewer v. Hawkinson, 2009 MT 346 (Mont. 2009) (contract interpretation and standards for restrictive covenants)
Cole v. State ex rel. Brown, 308 Mont. 265, 42 P.3d 760 (Mont. 2002) (equity and laches in enforceability actions)
Trs. of Ind. Univ. v. Buxbaum, 315 Mont. 210, 69 P.3d 663 (Mont. 2003) (attorney fees discretion in declaratory actions)
Harmon v. Fiscus Realty, Inc., 362 Mont. 135, 261 P.3d 1031 (Mont. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for awards of costs and fees)