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 Plaintiff, a long-time resident of a neighborhood governed by restrictive covenants, objected to a six-foot wall constructed by the Defendants near their lot line. The Plaintiff argued that the wall violated covenants limiting wall height to three feet and prohibiting walls within a 25-foot set-back area. The Defendants, unaware of the covenants, built the wall to expand their backyard for their children. The neighborhood's architectural control committee, which could approve such variances, was no longer active (paras 1, 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The trial court ruled in favor of the Defendants, allowing the wall to stand. It found the covenants ambiguous, noted societal changes since the 1950s, and allowed 30 days for the formation of an architectural control committee to oversee the wall's completion. The court prohibited the committee from ordering the wall's removal (paras 1, 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the wall violated the restrictive covenants, which were clear and enforceable. Claimed emotional distress damages and objected to the trial court's evidentiary rulings and cost-sharing order for the appeal transcript (paras 2, 8-9, 29-34).
- Defendants: Contended that the covenants were ambiguous, societal changes rendered the three-foot wall requirement unreasonable, and the absence of an architectural control committee deprived them of their contractual rights. They also argued that the wall was reasonable and consistent with modern neighborhood standards (paras 1, 7, 11, 18-20).
Legal Issues
- Were the restrictive covenants ambiguous or unenforceable due to changed circumstances?
- Did the trial court err in denying the Plaintiff a jury trial for emotional distress damages?
- Was the trial court correct in admitting evidence of a zoning decision approving the wall?
- Did the trial court err in requiring the Plaintiff to share the cost of the appeal transcript?
Disposition
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding the wall and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings on emotional distress damages, evidentiary issues, and cost-sharing for the transcript (paras 37-38).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bustamante CJ. and Fry J. concurring):
- Restrictive Covenants: The court found the covenants unambiguous and enforceable. The provisions clearly prohibited walls exceeding three feet in height and within the 25-foot set-back area. The trial court erred in finding ambiguity and in concluding that societal changes rendered the covenants unenforceable. Evidence of compliance by most neighborhood properties supported the Plaintiff's position (paras 11-17).
- Architectural Control Committee: The absence of a functioning committee did not negate the covenants. The trial court should have allowed time for the committee's reconstitution or, failing that, exercised equitable discretion while respecting the covenants' explicit terms (paras 18-27).
- Emotional Distress Damages: The Plaintiff's claim for emotional distress damages was properly dismissed as the alleged harm did not meet the threshold for such claims under New Mexico law (para 29).
- Zoning Evidence: The trial court correctly admitted evidence of the zoning decision for the limited purpose of assessing the wall's reasonableness, without overriding the covenants (para 30).
- Transcript Costs: The trial court acted within its discretion in requiring the Plaintiff to share transcript costs, as the Plaintiff challenged factual findings and the entire transcript was relevant to the appeal (paras 31-36).
The appellate court directed the trial court to allow time for the formation of an architectural control committee or, if none was formed, to evaluate the wall's reasonableness while adhering to the covenants. It emphasized that a six-foot wall near the lot line was unreasonable under the covenants (paras 37-38).