Case Title: Dice v. Central Natrona County Imp. and Service Dist

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1984-07-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Dice v. Central Natrona County Imp. and Service Dist1984 WY 76684 P.2d 815Case Number: 83-108Decided: 07/27/1984DARRELL J. DICE AND JACKIE DICE, D/B/A DICE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS), 

v. 

CENTRAL NATRONA COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AND SERVICE DISTRICT, BOBBY T. EDWARDS, DON AND CAROL TIPTON, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS).
Supreme Court of Wyoming
DARRELL J. DICE AND 
JACKIE DICE, D/B/A DICE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS), 

v. 

CENTRAL NATRONA 
COUNTYIMPROVEMENT AND SERVICE 
DISTRICT, BOBBY T. EDWARDS, DON AND CAROL TIPTON, APPELLEES 
(PLAINTIFFS).

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, NatronaCounty, R.M. Forrister, 
J.

 
 
Earl R. Johnson, 
Jr., Casper, for appellants.

Richard Peek, 
Casper, for appellees.

Before ROONEY, C.J., and 
THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     In this case the 
appellants raise the question of whether restrictive covenants pertaining to a 
subdivision can be enforced by owners of property within the subdivision in the 
absence of a building committee selected in accordance with the restrictive 
covenants and without a showing of irreparable injury. In its judgment the 
district court found that the adjoining property owners had standing to enforce 
the restrictive building covenants and that the covenants had been violated. It 
entered a judgment in favor of the other property owners in the form of an 
injunction restraining construction by the appellants. We are in complete accord 
with the judgment entered by the district court and affirm that 
judgment.

[¶2.]     In 1981 the Dices 
acquired four lots in the Bar Nunn Ranch Subdivision in Natrona County, Wyoming. Each of the lots was one hundred by 
two hundred feet and thus contained 20,000 square feet. The Dices subsequently 
divided each lot into two so that they had eight lots of 10,000 square feet. 
They then proceeded to construct a single family dwelling on one-half of each of 
the four lots which they had divided. In March of 1982 Darrell Dice stated in 
written communications to the Central Natrona County Improvement and Service 
District that he intended to build single-family dwellings on the other halves 
of the respective lots which he had divided.

[¶3.]     Prior to the 
acquisition of these lots by the Dices a stipulated judgment had been entered 
with respect to the Bar Nunn Ranch Subdivision which adopted certain Building 
Restrictions relating to that property. The Building Restrictions provided in 
Article I, § 1.2, as follows:

"1.2. Upon any lot 
above-described no structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to 
remain on any lot other than a one detached single family 
dwelling."

 

The lots owned 
by the Dices were included in the lots referred to in § 1.2 of the Building 
Restrictions. Section 4.6 of Article IV of the Building Restrictions also is 
significant. It provided:

"4.6 These covenants are 
to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons 
claiming under them until ten years (10) from and after the date of execution 
hereof, at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for 
successive periods of ten years (10) unless by vote of a majority of the then 
Owners of the lots or building sites, it is agreed to change said covenants in 
whole or part. If the parties hereto or any of them or their heirs or assigns 
shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, it shall be 
lawful for any other person or persons owning any of the lots or building sites 
mentioned herein to prosecute any proceeding at law or in equity against any 
person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant, and 
either to prevent him or them from so doing or to recover damages for such 
violations. * * *."

[¶4.]     Subsequent to the 
Judgment adopting the Building Restrictions, CDS, Inc., as owner of certain lots 
in the Bar-Nunn Ranch Subdivision, adopted additional Building Restrictions. In 
those additional building restrictions provision was made for committees of 
three persons to supervise and enforce the building restrictions. The committee 
members were to be elected on September 1 of each year to serve a term of one 
year. One was to be a principal of CDS, Inc., or a nominee of that entity, and 
the others were to be elected by a majority of the owners of land in the area. 
In these additional Building Restrictions, in an article which applied to two of 
the lots owned by the Dices, provision was made for a minimum lot area three 
times the total floor area of the building but not less than 9,000 square feet. 
These building restrictions, however, are silent with respect to any authority 
in the committees to waive the provisions of either set of building 
restrictions, and they do not specifically provide for authority to approve the 
division of lots.

[¶5.]     Upon the announced 
intention of the Dices to build additional homes on the other halves of the lots 
which had been subdivided the Central Natrona County Improvement and Service 
District, Bobby T. Edwards, and Don and Carol Tipton brought this action, 
seeking injunctive relief against the Dices with respect to the violation of the 
building restrictions and specifically enjoining them from building more than 
one single-family dwelling per platted lot in the Bar Nunn Ranch Subdivision. In 
its Judgment the district court found that the plaintiffs, who are the appellees 
in this court, as property owners had standing to enforce the building 
restrictions; that the Dices had expressed an intention to build more than one 
single-family dwelling per lot as originally platted; that the proposal to build 
more than one single-family dwelling on the lots in question was contrary to and 
in violation of the building restrictions; and that the plaintiffs were entitled 
to injunctive relief without a showing of irreparable damage and the inadequacy 
of a legal remedy. The court then entered its judgment permanently enjoining the 
Dices from violating the building restrictions relating to the Bar Nunn Ranch 
Subdivision in Natrona County, Wyoming, and specifically enjoining them from 
building more than one single-family dwelling on the lots in question. The 
appeal to this court is from that judgment.

[¶6.]     In their brief the 
Dices state the issues in this appeal in the following 
manner:

"1. Was a proper building 
committee elected?

"2. Was there a building 
committee at the time of defendant's construction?

"3. Did the alledged 
[sic] building committee ignore the covenants and 
restrictions?

"4. Can an injunction 
issue if there is no showing of irreparable harm of uncompensatible [sic] 
injury?

"5. Did the subdivision 
abandon the building restrictions and covenants to Natrona County, Wyoming? 

"6. Did defendant comply 
with Natrona County, 
Wyoming 
requirements?

"7. Has Bar Nunn (the 
town of) abandoned its control or is it estopped or has it waived its 
claim?"

The appellees 
state the questions before the court in this way:

"1. Whether there was 
substantial evidence before the Trial Court to support its finding that 
Appellees, as property owners, have standing to enforce the applicable building 
restrictions, and that, in this action, Appellees took proper steps to enforce 
said building restrictions.

"2. Can a permanent 
injunction issue to enforce building restrictions if there is no showing of 
irreparable harm and the insufficiency of a legal remedy; and, in any event, did 
Appellees establish by competent evidence irreparable damage and insufficiency 
of legal remedy, which would warrant injunctive relief to enforce the applicable 
building restrictions."

In addition the 
appellees suggest that costs and penalties should be awarded because there was 
no reasonable cause for appeal.

[¶7.]     The preponderance of 
the Dices' brief and argument relates to the failure to elect a proper committee 
in accordance with the second set of Building Restrictions. Whatever the 
resolution of that question might be in a proper case, it has no materiality in 
the disposition of this case. The assumption of the Dices is that if a committee 
had been properly elected they could have obtained permission to do that which 
they sought to do from the committee. In the Building Restrictions, however, 
there is no provision for the building committee to in any way acquiesce in an 
adjustment of the provision for only one single-family dwelling per lot. Keller v. Branton, Wyo., 
667 P.2d 650 (1983). In the absence of authority on the part of the committee to 
adjust that requirement of the Building Restrictions, whether a proper committee 
was in existence is not of significance in the disposition of the 
case.

[¶8.]     The Building 
Restrictions with respect to only "one detached single family dwelling" upon any 
lot are equally plain and unambiguous as the language construed in Knadler v. Adams, Wyo., 661 P.2d 1052 
(1983). The lot referred to in the Building Restrictions has to be a lot as it 
was originally platted. See Mangini v. 
Oak Park Trust and Savings Bank, 43 
Ill. App.2d 
318, 193 N.E.2d 479 (1963). The Dices suggest by their argument that they were 
justified in subdivision of these lots because the subdivided lots would contain 
more than 9,000 square feet, in accordance with the additional Building 
Restrictions, but their impression that this is permissible under the Building 
Restrictions is erroneous.

[¶9.]     The other contention of 
the Dices that is of some significance is the claim that no injunction should 
issue because there is no showing of irreparable harm or uncompensable damage. 
The rule is clear that a restrictive covenant such as that here in question can 
be enforced without regard to the amount of damages which would result from a 
breach and even though there is no substantial monetary damage. E.g., Continental Oil Co. v. Fennemore, 38 
Ariz. 277, 299 P. 132 (1931); Payette Lakes Protective Ass'n v. Lake Reservoir Company, 
68 Idaho 111, 189 P.2d 1009 (1948); Beck v. Heckman, 140 Iowa 351, 118 N.W. 510 (1908); Oosterhouse v. Brummel, 343 Mich. 283, 72 N.W.2d 6 
(1955); Matthews v. First Christian 
Church of St. Louis, 355 Mo. 627, 197 S.W.2d 617 (1946); Jinkins v. City of Jal, 73 N.M. 173, 386 P.2d 599 (1963); EvangelicalLutheranChurch of the Ascension of Snyder v. 
Sahlem, 254 N.Y. 161, 172 N.E. 455 (1930); and Kiernan v. Snowden, Sup., 123 N.Y.S.2d 895 (1953). The district court here properly granted injunctive relief even in 
the absence of a showing of irreparable harm or uncompensable 
injury.

[¶10.]  The other contentions of the Dices which 
are not specifically dealt with have been considered, but in light of our 
disposition of the other issues they have no significance. Whether the Dices 
complied with the requirements of NatronaCounty and whether the Town of Bar Nunn or the Bar Nunn 
Ranch Subdivision might have wished to abandon building restrictions are of no 
moment with respect to restrictive covenants such as these. Further, a majority 
of the court is not prepared to certify that this is an instance in which there 
was no reasonable cause for the appeal so as to justify the assessment of 
penalties against the appellants.

[¶11.]  The judgment of the district court is 
affirmed.