Brumbaugh v. Mikelson Land Co.

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court considered whether restrictive covenants and a subdivision plat preserved rights of lot owners after a partial plat vacation and amendment of the covenants. The court held that the plaintiffs had rights to reasonably convenient easements for utilities and access, but no right to connect to an adjacent subdivision’s water system or to place central livestock facilities on subdivision property. The court also held that the defendant could not amend the covenants and that its appointment as the architectural committee was invalid, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding.

Holdings

1. The owners of Lots 77, 81, and 82 continued to enjoy the rights and remain bound by the obligations contained in the relevant Skytel Country Estates subdivision documents; the partial vacation and amendment did not change those rights.
2. The restrictive covenants and plat granted the Brumbaughs, as owners of a lot in the original subdivision, easements for power, sewer, and access across lands formerly within the Skytel Country Estates subdivision.
3. The Brumbaughs were not entitled, as a matter of law, to place their entire septic system in the common area or to use every developed road, including Heidi Drive; the district court instead had to determine the reasonable and convenient location, scope, and mode of the easements.
4. The subdivision documents did not grant the Brumbaughs a right to connect to the water system developed by Mikelson Land Company for the Cody's Country subdivision.
5. The covenants did not burden the property formerly included in the common area with a requirement that central livestock facilities be placed there, nor did they create an enforceable obligation to construct such facilities.
6. Mikelson Land Company did not have authority to modify the Skytel Country Estates covenants; that authority belonged to two-thirds of the owners of land within the remaining subdivision.
7. The appointment of Mikelson Land Company as the architectural committee was invalid because the appointment was made by the former president of Skytel in his individual capacity rather than by Skytel, and the one-year appointment had expired before the complaint was filed.
8. The Brumbaughs' claims were not barred by the statute of frauds because the recorded declaration of restrictive covenants and subdivision plat were writings governing the claimed rights.

Questions Presented

1. What effect did the partial vacation of the Skytel Country Estates plat and amendment of the restrictive covenants have on the rights of owners of the remaining Skytel lots?
2. Did the restrictive covenants and plat grant the Brumbaughs easements for power, access, and sewer purposes?
3. Did the subdivision documents grant the Brumbaughs a right to connect to the Cody's Country water system?
4. Did the subdivision documents grant a right to place central livestock facilities on the common area of the original subdivision?
5. Did Mikelson Land Company have authority to amend the Skytel Country Estates covenants?
6. Was Mikelson Land Company validly appointed as the architectural control committee?

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded