AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case concerns a dispute over the enforcement of restrictive covenants in the Danalla Subdivision in Corrales, New Mexico. The original owners of the subdivision attempted to impose restrictive covenants on the property, but the covenants were not properly recorded before the property was transferred to subsequent owners. The Defendants, who operated a vehicle repair and trucking business on the property, were alleged to have violated these covenants. The Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and enforcement of the covenants.

Procedural History

• District Court, Sandoval County: The trial court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and enforcement of restrictive covenants, finding that the covenants were invalid and unenforceable.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the restrictive covenants were valid, ran with the land, and were binding on the Defendants as subsequent purchasers. They contended that the trial court erred in finding the covenants invalid and in concluding that the Defendants lacked notice of the covenants.
• Defendants-Appellees: Asserted that the restrictive covenants were invalid because they were not properly recorded before the property was transferred. They also argued that the covenants were extinguished due to a merger of ownership and that they had no notice of the covenants.

Legal Issues

• Were the restrictive covenants valid and enforceable against the Defendants?
• Did the Defendants have actual, constructive, or inquiry notice of the restrictive covenants?
• Did the trial court err in adopting the Defendants' findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the restrictive covenants were invalid and unenforceable, and that the Defendants lacked notice of the covenants.

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Minzner CJ. and Bivins J. concurring):

• The Court found that the restrictive covenants were invalid because they were not properly acknowledged and recorded as required by law. The first filing of the covenants in June 1978 was not properly acknowledged, and the second filing in October 1978 occurred after the property had already been transferred to a new owner, extinguishing any covenants.
• The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the covenants were revived by subsequent amendments, noting that the amendments did not explicitly reestablish the covenants and that any prior covenants were extinguished by the merger of ownership.
• The Court determined that the Defendants did not have actual, constructive, or inquiry notice of the covenants. The invalid recording of the covenants precluded constructive notice, and there was no evidence of a general plan or scheme of development to establish inquiry notice.
• The Court acknowledged that the trial court adopted the Defendants' findings of fact and conclusions of law verbatim but held that this did not constitute reversible error because the findings were supported by the evidence.