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

A dispute arose between a developer (Santa Fe Estates, Inc. and Ridgetop Road, LLC) and a non-profit organization (Concerned Residents of Santa Fe North, Inc.) regarding the enforcement of restrictive covenants recorded on the developer's commercial property. The covenants were created as part of a settlement agreement between the parties, but the non-profit organization did not own any property that could benefit from the covenants (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Concerned Residents of Santa Fe North, Inc. v. Santa Fe Estates, Inc., 2008-NMCA-042: The Court of Appeals of New Mexico held that the settlement agreement created restrictions on the developer's commercial property and required the developer to record the restrictive covenants (paras 1-2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Concerned Residents of Santa Fe North, Inc.): Argued that it had the right to enforce the restrictive covenants because (1) equity requires a remedy for the right to require the recording of covenants, (2) the settlement agreement created a personal covenant in gross benefitting the organization, and (3) as a party to the agreement, it had enforcement rights akin to a third-party beneficiary (paras 4-5).
• Appellees (Santa Fe Estates, Inc. and Ridgetop Road, LLC): Contended that the non-profit organization had no right to enforce the covenants because it did not own property that could benefit from the covenants, and the settlement agreement did not explicitly grant enforcement rights to the organization (paras 2-3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Did the settlement agreement create a personal covenant in gross or otherwise grant the non-profit organization the right to enforce the restrictive covenants?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the developer, holding that the non-profit organization had no right to enforce the restrictive covenants (para 15).

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Fry CJ and Bustamante J. concurring):

The Court held that the settlement agreement did not clearly create a personal covenant in gross or grant the non-profit organization the right to enforce the restrictive covenants. The Court emphasized that restrictions on property use must be clearly stated in agreements and cannot be implied. The organization’s argument that the covenants must be enforceable because it had the right to require their recording was rejected, as this would rely on implication rather than explicit contractual language. The Court also noted that the organization’s equity-based argument and third-party beneficiary claim were not preserved for appeal (paras 3, 6-14).