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 a restrictive covenant in a subdivision near Taos, New Mexico. The Plaintiffs, owners of nine lots in the Eastern Nighthawk Trail area, sought to enforce a restriction allegedly prohibiting the Defendant, the owner of a 4.2-acre lot, from subdividing her property. The Defendant argued that she had no notice of such a restriction when she purchased her property and later obtained a corrected deed allowing subdivision. Plaintiffs claimed the restriction was intended to benefit their properties and relied on it when purchasing their lots (paras 1-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Taos County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding there were no material issues of fact and that the Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the restriction in the Defendant’s initial deed was an express covenant running with the land, intended to benefit their properties. They contended that the Defendant had actual notice of the restriction and that the corrected deed should be invalidated or reformed (paras 6, 8, 18-19).
- Defendant-Appellee: Claimed that the restriction was unenforceable because she had no notice of a common development plan prohibiting subdivision. She argued that the only restriction in place was the one-acre minimum subdivision limitation in the recorded declaration of covenants (paras 6, 8, 20-21).
Legal Issues
- Whether the restriction in the Defendant’s initial deed constituted an enforceable covenant running with the land.
- Whether the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the restriction prohibiting subdivision.
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (paras 7-8, 12).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 23).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Garcia JJ. concurring):
- Covenant Running with the Land: The Court analyzed the three elements required to establish an enforceable covenant running with the land: (1) the covenant must touch and concern the land, (2) the original parties must intend the covenant to run with the land, and (3) the successor to the burden must have notice of the covenant (para 11). The Court found that the restriction in the Defendant’s initial deed satisfied these elements or raised material issues of fact (paras 12-20).
- Touch and Concern: The restriction burdened the Defendant’s property by prohibiting subdivision and benefitted the Plaintiffs’ properties by preserving lower construction density. The Defendant’s arguments about her real estate agent’s representations did not negate the express language in the deed (paras 16-17).
- Intent: Evidence, including the grantor’s statements and similar restrictions in other deeds, raised a factual issue about whether the restriction was intended to run with the land (paras 18-19).
- Notice: The Defendant had actual notice of the restriction because it was expressly included in her initial deed, regardless of contrary representations made by her real estate agent (paras 20-22).
- Summary Judgment: The Court concluded that the Defendant failed to make a prima facie case for summary judgment and that Plaintiffs raised genuine issues of material fact on all three elements of a covenant running with the land (paras 12, 15, 23).
The Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 23).