Title: Reading v. Keller

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

67 Wn.2d 86 (1965) 406 P.2d 634 F. WHITMORE READING et al., Respondents, v. ROBERT H. KELLER et al., Appellants.[*] No. 37867. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One. October 7, 1965. *87 O'Leary, Meyer & O'Leary, by Ernest L. Meyer, for appellants. Parr & Baker and Frank E. Baker, for respondents. OTT, J. April 17, 1940, a plat of Sunset Addition No. 6 in Olympia was filed in the office of the County Auditor for Thurston County. The owners and platters of the Addition did not file with the plat any building restrictions. As they sold the residential lots, the deeds contained the platters' restrictive building covenants. Covenant No. 2 provided: May 1, 1945, the owners deeded Lots 11 and 12 in Block 5 to Howard C. Moon and wife. The deed was recorded in the office of the County Auditor, and contained 12 restrictive covenants, including the one above quoted. October 27, 1958, Howard C. Moon and wife sold their lots on contract to Robert H. Keller and wife. The contract recited that title was subject to the "Easements and restrictions of record." The deed, which was placed in escrow, contained no restrictive covenants. However, the Kellers received a title insurance policy, dated November 1, 1958 to which was attached a resume of the platters' 12 restrictive covenants. In October 1959, the Kellers completed payment of their contract, and the deed was delivered to them by the escrow holder. Lot 11, Block 5, owned by Robert H. Keller and wife, is a corner lot on the southeast corner of the block. Lot 10, Block 5, is a corner lot on the southwest corner of the block, owned by F. Whitmore Reading and wife. The Reading deed contains the same restrictive covenants as those in the *88 deed to Howard C. Moon, from whom Kellers obtained their title. December 18, 1961, Robert H. Keller commenced construction of a residence on Lot 11. January 5, 1962, when it became evident from the stakes and proposed footings that the residence would be only 20 feet from the street, instead of 30 feet as provided by the platters' restrictive building covenant No. 2, Mr. Reading contacted Mr. Keller and informed him of the building restriction. When building continued, Mr. Reading again called Mr. Keller and advised him that an injunction would be sought if construction continued as contemplated. Mr. Keller had then expended some $1,500 in construction costs. January 26, 1962, other property owners residing in the addition protested the violation to Mr. Keller in writing. February 15, 1962, F. Whitmore Reading and wife commenced this action to enjoin the construction of the residence on Lot 11 in violation of the restrictive covenant. By this time, Mr. Keller had expended $6,000 of the total $12,000 construction cost of the residence on Lot 11. February 15, 1962, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining further construction. The court dissolved the injunction on March 5, 1962, but orally advised the Kellers "that further construction with attendant expenditures would be absolutely at the risk of the defendants and would have no legal effect upon the Court's decision when the matter came on for hearing on the merits." (Findings of Fact No. 7.) When the cause was tried to the court on the merits, construction of the residence had been completed. Findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the plaintiffs were entered. The judgment granting a permanent injunction is in part as follows: The defendants have appealed. Appellants assert that "There is very little, if any, controversy concerning the facts in this case," and that the appeal is predicated upon equitable principles. The trial court found that the appellants, with knowledge of the restrictive building covenant, built their home in violation of it. [1] The evidence established that respondents had purchased a residence on Lot 9, Block 1, of Sunset Addition No. 6, in which they then resided. The house had been built by the former owners at ground level instead of 12 inches above ground level, as required by the restrictive covenants. Appellants urge that the facts here support the application of the equitable principle that one who has violated a building restriction cannot enforce a building restriction against others. 14 Am. Jur. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions § 338, at 665. The court found that the Reading property had been built by the former owners in violation of the restrictive covenant, but nevertheless granted respondents the relief prayed for. We must, therefore, conclude that the trial court held that the facts brought the respondents within the exception to the general rule, in that the violation was of a minor nature and did not destroy the building scheme. See J.L. Cooper & Co. v. Anchor Sec. Co., 9 Wn.2d 45, 113 P.2d 845 (1941); Romberg v. Smith, 132 Wash. 345, 232 Pac. 283 (1925); 14 Am. Jur. § 338, at 665, supra. [2] Appellants next contend that there has been no consistent compliance with covenant No. 2, particularly along Blass Street, and that failure to enforce the covenant constitutes a waiver of its provisions. Appellants rely upon *90 Mt. Baker Park Club v. Colcock, 45 Wn.2d 467, 471, 275 P.2d 733 (1954), which states: The trial judge inspected each of the alleged violations on Blass Street, and, in his memorandum opinion, concluded: The court further found that "Of the ninety-one lots in said Sunset Addition No. 6 this has been the only violation of such covenant from the date of platting Sunset Addition No. 6 on April 17, 1940, to the date of the purchase of the defendants' [appellants'] property." (Finding of Fact No. 9.) The court concluded that the appellants had failed to establish an adequate defense and bring themselves within the rule announced in Mt. Baker Park Club v. Colcock, supra; therefore, their contention that enforcement of the restrictive covenant had been waived was without merit. We agree. The trial court properly applied the rule announced *91 in the cited case to the facts established by the evidence. Finally, appellants contend that the respondents have been guilty of laches, in that they failed to act promptly to prevent the appellants from suffering a substantial financial loss, and that now to require the appellants to comply with the restrictive covenant is an unconscionable penalty. The trial court found that there had been no laches on the part of the respondents. This finding is supported by the fact that the restrictive covenants were included in the title insurance policy which appellants received, by the prompt notice which respondents gave to appellants as soon as the violation became apparent, and by the court's admonition to appellants, at the time the temporary restraining order was dissolved, that further construction would be at their risk. [3] There was a delay of approximately 6 weeks after respondents gave notice to appellants of their intention to enjoin before the action was commenced. During this time, the parties were trying to effect a settlement. A reasonable delay caused by an effort to settle a dispute does not invoke the doctrine of laches. Mt. Baker Park Club, v. Colcock, supra. The judgment is affirmed. Since the time for compliance with the provisions of the judgment has expired, appellants are granted 120 days from the date the remittitur is filed in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court for Thurston County for compliance. ROSELLINI, C.J., HILL and HALE, JJ., and LANGENBACH, J. Pro Tem., concur. December 3, 1965. Petition for rehearing denied. [*] Reported in 406 P.2d 634.