Prairie Hills Water & Dev. Co. v. Gross

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld an injunction barring the defendants from operating a commercial sandblasting, painting, welding, and related business in a residential subdivision. The court held that the business violated restrictive covenants and constituted a public nuisance because of its noise, dust, traffic, and safety impacts. It affirmed attorney-fee liability for the property owners under the covenants but reversed liability for non-property owners.

Holdings

1. The defendants' commercial sandblasting, painting, welding, grinding, and related operations violated the restrictive covenants because they conflicted with the subdivision's residential purpose and unreasonably disturbed neighboring property owners.
2. The defendants' business constituted a public nuisance because its sight, noise, dust, traffic, and safety problems substantially and unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of property throughout the subdivision.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permanently enjoining the defendants' commercial business activities in the subdivision.
4. Covenant 11 authorized attorney fees against subsequent property owners because it was incidental to covenants directly benefiting the land and therefore ran with the land under SDCL 43-12-2.
5. Covenant 11 did not authorize attorney fees against defendants who did not own subdivision property because its express terms imposed the obligation only on a property owner violating the covenants.
6. The plaintiff was entitled to $3,000 in appellate attorney fees against Jim Gross and Linda Paulson, while the defendants' motion for appellate attorney fees was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants' commercial business violated the residential covenants and restrictions.
2. Whether the defendants' commercial business constituted a public nuisance under South Dakota law.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a permanent injunction.
4. Whether the restrictive covenant authorized attorney fees against both property-owning and non-property-owning defendants.
5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to appellate attorney fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded