D & M Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Romriell - 138 Idaho 160, 59 P.3d 965 (2002)

Rule:

Idaho recognizes the validity of covenants that restrict the use of private property. When interpreting such covenants, a court generally applies the same rules of construction as are applied to any contract or covenant. However, because restrictive covenants are in derogation of the common law right to use land for all lawful purposes, a court will not extend by implication any restriction not clearly expressed. Further, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the free use of land.

Facts:

Defendants, Dwight G. and Denise B. Romriell, Dannis M. and Ruth N. Adamson, the Aspen Grove Assisted Living General Partnership, and E-Riter, L.L.C. (collectively, the Romriells), purchased the real property at issue located in the D&M Subdivision in Idaho and subject to certain restrictive covenants. At the time of purchase, a single-family residence was located on the property. Plaintiff, D&M Estates Home Owner's Association Board, a non-profit association of homeowners, was entitled to enforce these covenants. Defendants applied for approval of a remodeling project that would have converted the single-family home into a home for the elderly. Plaintiff denied the request and had to seek an injunction to prevent defendants from continuing with their proposed plans. Defendants appealed. The trial court found the proposal was clearly in violation of the enforceable covenants and were not invalidated by zoning regulations. The appellate court initially noted Idaho recognized the validity of covenants that restricted the use of private property. The appellate court held the covenants were unambiguous, enforceable, and that the defendant's proposal clearly violated the covenants. The appellate court concluded the covenants were not rendered invalid or unenforceable as a result of Idaho Code §§ 67-6530, 6531, because they were limited in application to zoning regulations alone and did not apply to restrictive covenants.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in its decision finding the defendants proposal clearly in violation of the covenants and were not invalidated by zoning regulations?

Answer:

No. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Conclusion:

The court held that the district judge properly determined that the defendant’s proposed use of the residence at issue for the purposes of operating a group home was in violation of the Covenants. The Covenants were unambiguous as applied to this particular issue, and the district judge applied them correctly as a matter of law. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Covenants were not rendered invalid or unenforceable as a result of Idaho Code §§ 67-6530 and 6531, which, by their own terms, were limited in application to zoning regulations alone and did not apply to restrictive covenants. The court then award costs, but not fees, to plaintiff on appeal.