C & A Investments, L.L.C. v. Jiangson Duke, LLC

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court addresses consolidated appeals arising from a real property dispute involving restrictive covenants in a Reciprocal Easement and Operation Agreement for a shopping center. The court affirmed the judgment in Docket No. 79881, concluding that changed conditions and alleged violations did not warrant invalidating or abandoning the restrictions. In Docket No. 83279, it reversed and remanded the denial of NRCP 60(b) relief for application of the proper standards, while affirming the orders concerning attorney fees and costs.

Holdings

1. A restrictive covenant remains enforceable unless changed conditions have so thwarted its purpose that the restriction has no appreciable value to other property owners and enforcement would be inequitable or oppressive. Increased potential value from a different use, economic difficulties, or anticipated traffic reduction did not satisfy that standard here.
2. Abandonment requires violations that are so substantial and general that they frustrate the original purpose of the agreement, established by clear and unequivocal evidence of acts of a decisive nature. The alleged violations here did not meet that standard.
3. When a party seeks relief under NRCP 60(b)(5) on the ground that prospective application of a judgment is no longer equitable, the district court must first determine whether the judgment is prospective in nature and, if so, conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into whether relief is warranted.
4. If relief is unavailable under NRCP 60(b)(5), the district court must separately determine whether exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justify relief under NRCP 60(b)(6), and relief may not be sought under subsection (6) when it would have been available under subsections (1) through (5).
5. A contractual attorney-fee provision that may reasonably be read either to authorize fees only for an action filed to enforce the agreement or also for a party defending against an action involving the agreement is ambiguous. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying attorney fees.
6. Costs must be reasonable, necessary, and actually incurred, and a district court may limit expert-witness costs when the claimant fails to provide evidence establishing those requirements. The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the costs awarded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether changed conditions rendered the Reciprocal Easement and Operation Agreement's restrictive covenants unenforceable.
2. Whether alleged prior violations were sufficiently substantial and general to establish abandonment of the restrictive covenants.
3. Whether the district court applied the correct standards under NRCP 60(b)(5) and (6).
4. Whether the Reciprocal Easement and Operation Agreement authorized an award of attorney fees for a party defending against an action seeking to invalidate the agreement.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting the award of expert and other litigation costs.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded