Summary
The Supreme Court of Montana addressed whether restrictive covenants governing adjacent residential properties were violated by a deck extension and split-rail fences. The court held that the fence restriction was governed by the covenant specifically addressing interference with river views and that the fences did not improperly interfere with those views. It also applied laches to bar enforcement concerning the deck extension and reversed the order requiring its removal, while affirming the denial of attorney fees and costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the restrictive covenant limiting structures and improvements to a ninety-foot building envelope applied to Woodward's fences.
- Whether Woodward's fences interfered with the Wagners' river view in violation of the restrictive covenants.
- Whether laches barred enforcement of the covenant against Woodward's deck addition.
- Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees or costs.
Holdings
- The covenant restricting structures and improvements to the ninety-foot building envelope did not apply to Woodward's fences because the covenants separately and expressly addressed fences in the river-view provision.
- Woodward's low, open, two-rail fences did not interfere with the Wagners' view of the river and therefore did not violate the fence restriction.
- Laches barred the Wagners from enforcing the restrictive covenant against Woodward's deck addition, even though the addition extended beyond the ninety-foot building envelope.
- Neither party was entitled to attorney fees or costs, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying them.
Key quotations
“Under these circumstances, it would be an unreasonable interpretation to apply covenant # 1 to fences.” (¶ 22)
“Laches is not a mere matter of elapsed time, but rather, it is principally a question of the inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced.” (¶ 27)
“Given Woodward's detrimental reliance on Wagners' failure to timely enforce the covenants as they pertain to the eaves of his home and the absolute absence of damages to the Wagners, it would be inequitable to compel removal of the deck addition.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
The parties owned adjacent residential properties along the Whitefish River that were subject to recorded restrictive covenants. One covenant required structures or improvements on Lot 1 to remain within ninety feet of the lot's northern boundary, while another prohibited fences, trees, or shrubs that interfered with the other lot's river view. Woodward extended an existing deck to the reach of his home's eaves and built low, two-rail split-rail fences along his property boundaries; the Wagners did not object during construction and later sued. The fences minimally obstructed visibility, and Woodward relied on the longstanding, unchallenged position of the home's eaves when constructing the deck.
Procedural history
The Wagners sued Woodward, seeking declarations and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of restrictive covenants governing adjacent properties. The Eleventh Judicial District Court granted Woodward summary judgment concerning his fences, ruled that his deck addition violated the covenants, ordered the deck addition removed, applied laches to the preexisting eaves violation, dismissed Woodward's counterclaim, and denied attorney fees and costs. The Wagners appealed the fence ruling, and Woodward cross-appealed the deck ruling.