I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - CT - 0 1 8 6 5 - S CT J OEL M I SI TA v. RO Y A . (

AL ) CONN A ND MI T

Z I P. CONN ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 25/ 2011 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . E . V IN C E N T D A V IS TRI AL C OU RT A TTOR NEY S: KA TI E W . FREI BERG ER R. KE NT HUDS ON CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: ADA M S COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT R. KE NT HUDS ON ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES : KA TI E W . FREI BERG ER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY DI S P OS I T I ON : T HE J UD GME NT OF T HE C OU R T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED I N P AR T AND RE VE RS E D I N P ART . T HE J UDGMENT OF THE ADA M S COUNTY CHANCER Y COURT I S R E I NS T AT E D AN D AF F I RMED - 05/ 15/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . R o y a n d M itzi C o n n filed su it in th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f A d a m s C o u n ty a g a in st th e ir adj oi ni ng l andow nerJ oel M i s i t a, w ho had pl ace d a s t ructur e on hi s l and. T he C onns s ought t o enf or ce a w arr anty deed restr i ct i on pl ace d by t hei rpr edec es s or s i n t i t l e thatpr ohi bi t ed M i s i t a f r om er ect i ng any “st ructur es ” on thr ee a cr es of hi s l and. T he cha ncery cour trul ed

### Misita is anartisan an d b uild s cust om metal items fo r clients. 1 

### Mis it a bui lt

his home . Thef

ir st f loor of that struc tur e s er

ves as his me ta l s hop and 2 

### is muc h highe r than a

st andard thre e- st ory bui lding.

2 in fa v o r o f th e C o n n s a n d o rd e re d th e re m o v a l o f th e s tr u c tu re . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls affirm ed the C o n n s’ au tho ri ty to e n forc e the res tr ict ive co v en an t bu t r ev erse d the c h an ce ry c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t itw a s a stru c tu re . T h is C o u rt g ra n ted th e C o n n s’ P e tit io n fo r W rit of C er t i or ar i . W e af

f i r m i n pa r ta nd r ever s e i n pa r tthe j udgm entof t he C our tof

A ppeal s and re in sta te a n d a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. K evi n and R ebec ca W i l s on ow ned a r es i dence and appr oxi m at el y t w enty- s even acr es i n A dams Count y. O n N ovember16, 2007, t he W i l s ons deede d appr oxi m at el y t hr ee a cr es o f th e tw e n ty -se v e n a c re s to M isita. T h e c o n v e y a n c e c o n sis ted o f u n im p ro v e d p ro p e rty 1 fron ti n g H igh w ay 61 i n A d am s C o u n ty an d ad joine d M isi ta’s ex ist ing sev en ac re s, w h ere M isi ta ha d co n stru cted a six ty-t w o -feet-high , cu stom -bu il t, three -sto ry h o m e. T h ere w ere 2 al s o m ul t i pl e outbui l di ngs , s heds , and tr ai l er s on t hi s propert y as w el l . Pr i ort o t he s al e of t he thr ee a cr es , K evi n vis i t ed M i s i t a and i nf or m ed M i s i t a thatt he dee d w oul d cont ai n a pr ovi s i on “thatno s t ructur es ar e t o be er ect ed on the pr oper t y. ” M i s i t a s t at ed thats uch a provis i on w as “f

i ne, ” but no w M i si t a al l eges he un derst oo d W i l son’s r equ estt o en com pass o n ly stru c tu re s lik e h is s ix ty -tw o -fe e t h ig h h o m e . T h e w a rra n ty d e e d c o n v e y e d to M isita fr o m W ils o n c o n ta in e d a p ro v is io n w h ic h p ro v id e d , in tera lia , that“ [ n] o s t ructur es a r e t o be er ect ed on the pr oper t y. ”

### Th e structure is eigh teen b y eig hteenbyeighteen feet. 3 

### 3 ¶3. O n J une 19, 2008, t he W i l s ons sol d t heir rem ai ni ng acr eage and hom e, w hi ch w as appr ai s ed f

or$850, 000, t o A l and M i t zi C onn. Pr i ort o t he s al e, K evi n i nf or m ed the C onns th a t th e th re e a c re s o f M isita’ s p ro p e rty fro n tin g H ig h w a y 6 1 w e re su b jec t to a sc e n ic eas ementand no structur es coul d be pl ace d on t he pr oper t y. A l l at err evi ew ed the dee d f r om W i l s on t o M i s i t a t o con fi rm t he “no- s t ructur e” pr ovi s i on pr i ort o pur chas i ng t he pr oper t y. T h e C o n n s te stifie d th a t th e re stric tiv e c o v e n a n t p lay e d a m a jo r ro le in th e ir d e c isio n to p u rc h a se th e p ro p e rty , as it p re v e n ted th e th re e -a c re fro n tag e p o rt io n o f M isita’ s p ro p e rty f r om becomi ng “j unked- up” l i ke the r es tof M i s i t a’ s pr oper t y. The w arr anty deed c onveyi ng t he pr oper t y di d noti ncl ude the r es t r i ct i ve covenant s plac ed on M i s i t a’ s l and. A f t ert he C o n n s p u rc h a se d th e W ilso n p ro p e rty , M isita in fo rm e d th e C o n n s th a t h e p la n n e d to b u ild a “ s i g n ” a n d d i s p l a y i to n t h e t h r e e a c r e s . De s p i t e v e rb a l a n d wr i t t e n o b j e c t i o n f r o m A l C on n, M i si t a con struct ed the structure ati ssue and placed i ton t he thr ee acres. ¶4. A l t hough t he part i es and the cha ncel l orr ef err ed t o M i s i t a’ s cr eat i on as a “s i gn, ” af t er re v iew in g th e re c o rd a n d p h o to g ra p h s, w e re a c h th e c o n c lu sio n th a t itis a stru c tu re w ith sig n a g e . It i s a th re e -sid e d stru c tu re w ith a flo o r a n d a c o rru g a ted m e tal ro o f. It is co n stru cted of m etal an d w o o d . Itis tri an g u lar i n sh ap e a n d co n n ec ts t o three p o les t h at form a fra m e , w ith tw o w h e e ls. E a c h s id e is e ig h tee n fe e t in len g th . T h e h e ig h t is a p p ro x im a tely 3 f i f t een f eet , a nd the s t ructur e i s c apabl e of be i ng r ai s ed hi gher . E xt er i ors t eps and a l andi ng ar e att ache d t o t he bac k s i de. T w o s i des of t he s t ructur e s erve as i l l um i nat ed s i gnage. E ach of t hos e tw o s i des cont ai ns fourext er i orl i ght s t hatext end outw ar d f r om t he r oof

l i ne a f ew fe e t an d h a n g d o w n , re se m b lin g stre e t l a m p s. O n the rem a in in g sid e , th e b a c k sid e , a s in g le

### Th e interio r of th e structure is equ al to a ten -feet-by -fourteen-feet- square ro om. 4 

### 4 l i ghti l l um i nat es the doorand ext er i ors t eps us ed f orentr y. T he doorm ay be l ocked by ke y and has gl as s w i ndow panes . A n aer i al pow erl i ne pr ovi des el ectr i ci t y t o t he i nt er i orof the stru c tu re , in a d d iti o n to th e o u tsid e lig h tin g . T h e in ter io r is a p p ro x im a tely 1 4 0 sq u a re fe e t. I ti s a f ul l y- encl os ed r oom , compl et e w i t h a f l oorand a roof

. T he r oom i s ai r - condi t i oned 4 and serves as a s how r oom f ors om e of

M i s i t a’ s w or ks . A l t hough w heel s ar e att ache d, t he s t ructur e has not b een m ov ed si nce M i s i t a pl ace d i ti n i t s curr entpos i t i on, by f i t t i ng and cr os s - bol t i ng t he f

r ame i nt o per m anent l y at t ache d re cept or s setby concr et e i nt o t he gr ound. ¶5. O n M ar ch 24, 2011, t he C onns f i l ed s ui t . A t ri al w as hel d on Sept ember 27, 2011. O n O ct ober25, 2011, t he cha ncel l orent er ed a j udgm enti n f avorof t he C onns and or der ed t he r emoval of M i s i t a’ s “s i gn. ” M i s i t a appe al ed, and w e as s i gned the ca s e t o t he C our tof A ppeal s . M i s i t a as s er t ed the f ol l ow i ng i s s ues bef

or e the C our tof

A ppeal s : ( 1) w hethert he W i l s on- M i s i t a dee d r es t r i ct i on i s a r eal covena ntt hatruns w i t h t he l and; and ( 2) w hethert he re s tr ic tio n is s o a m b ig u o u s a n d in d e fi n ite a s to b e u n e n fo rc e a b le . Mis ita v. Conn , 2 0 1 3 WL 2302945, **1- 4 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. M ay 28, 2013) . T he C our tof A ppeal s def

i ned “s t ructur e” as “s om ethi ng bui l tor cons t ruct ed, as a bui l di ng, br i dge, ordam. ” I d. at*3 ( quot i ng R andom H ou se W ebst er’s U

na bri dg ed D i ct i on ary 1 8 8 7 (2 n d e d . 2 0 0 1 )). T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls opi ned thatt he “s i gn” w as nota s t ructur e, a s i tw as nei t hera bui l di ng, a br i dge, ora dam, and t hati tw as m or e aki n t o a “ve hi cl e. ” I d. T h e C o n n s filed a p e tit io n fo r w rit o f c e rt io ra ri,
w h ic h th is C o u rt g ra n te d . I S S UES

### 5

¶6. W e add res s the fol l ow i ng t w o is sues: I . W hethert he r es t r i ct i on runs w i t h t he l and. I I . W hetherM i s i t a’ s s i gn i s a s t ructur e. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7 . “T he S up rem e C ou rtrevi ew s t he t ri al cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f actunder t he
m ani f es t - err or/ s ubs t ant i al - evi dence s t andar d. ” L ong Meadow H om eow ners ’A s s ’n, I

nc. v. H ar land , 89 So. 3d 573, 577 ( M i s s . 2012). H ow ever , “ques t i ons conce r ni ng t he cons t ruct i on a n d in te rp r e ta tio n o f c o n tr a c ts a re q u e s tio n s o f l a w ,” w h ic h w e re v ie w d e n o v o . R oyer Hom es of

Mis s is s i ppi , I nc. v. ChandeleurHom es, I nc. , 8 5 7 S o . 2 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). DI S CU S S I ON I . The r e s t r i c t i on r uns wi t h t he l and. ¶8 . B e fo re th e C o n n s, a s s u b seq u en t p u rch ase s of th e W il so n pro p erty, ca n se e k to enf or ce the r es t r i ct i ve cove nantati s s ue, t he cove nantm us t“run w i t h t he l and. ” A covena nt w i l l “run w i t h t he l and” i f t hr ee condi t i ons a r e m et : “ ( 1) the covena nt i ng pa r t i es musti nt end to c re a te s u c h c o v e n a n t; (2 ) p riv ity o f e sta te m u st e x ist b e tw e e n th e p e rso n c laim in g rig h t to enf or ce the cove nantand the per s on upon w hom bur den of covena nti s t o be i m pos ed; and ( 3) the covena ntm us t‘ t ouch and c oncern’ t he l and i n ques t i on. ” Hear n v. A ut um n W oods O ffice P a rk P ro

p . O w n ers A ss’n , 7 57 So. 2d 155, 158 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng V ulcan Mate r ial s Co. v . Mil

ler , 6 91 S o. 2d 908, 913 ( M i s s . 1997) ) . A covena ntt hatruns w i t h t he l and “i s notvoi d m er el y beca us e i ti s notr ef err ed t o i n any dee d conveye d t o subs equent ow ner s . ” Hearn , 757 So. 2d at158- 59. “[ A ] re al covenant[ t hatruns w i t h t he l and] cr eat es

### Similar restrictiv e cov enants havebeen me t with ap pro val. Harl and, 89 So. 3d at

575 5 

### (“ no struc tur e c ould beer ected, placed or permitte d to r em ain on any l ot ot her than one sing le family resid ential stru cture”); Hea rn , 757 So. 2d at 156 ( ea se me nt “ sha llbe pe rpe tua l andirrevo cable”); Stoke

s v. Bd . o f D irector

s of La Cav I

mp. Co. , 654 So. 2d 524, 525 (Mi ss . 1995) (“ no bui ldings, s tr uct ure s, out buil dings or

any other

i mprovem ent s sha ll be erected onth e p rop erty convey ed excep t . . . a p ier.”); Kinchen v. Layt on , 457 So. 2d 343, 345 (Mi ss . 1984) (“ [n] o struc tur e of a t em porary c har ac te r, bas em ent , t ent , sha ck, gar age , or other outbui lding shal l be pla ce d upon or use d on any l ot at any ti mefor purpos e e it

her te mporarily or pe rm ane ntly.” ) “I t ha s be en s ai d that t o me et thi s r equire me nt, thecove nant mus t beso r el at ed t o the 6 

### land as to e nhanc e i ts value and conf er a be nef it upon it , or, c onver se ly, i mpos e a burde n on it .” Mil ler , 691 So. 2d at914 ( ci t i ng 20 A m . J ur . 2d C ovenant s , C ondi t i ons , and R es tr i ct i ons § 1 5 (1 9 9 5 )) . 

### Or, “a

cove nant must bear upon theuse and e njoym ent of the l and. ” Mil

ler , 691 So. 2d at 914. 6 a s ervi tude upon the r eal t y ( t he s ervi entes t at e) f ort he bene f

i tof a not herpa r cel of

l and ( t he dom i nantes t at e) . ” Mil

ler , 691 So. 2d at913. ¶9. I n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce , t he cha ncel l orf ound t hatt he cove nantruns w i t h the l and bas ed o n “the n ature o f th e c o v e n a n t or restri cti o n it self. ” W e find n o erro r i n the c h an ce ll o r’s 5 concl us i on. T he chanc el l orfound thatK evi n W i l s on t ol d t he C onns aboutt he r es t r i ct i on and t hat M i si t a sough tperm i ssi on t o erectthe st ructure f rom t he C on ns. P ri vity o f es t at e exis t s, as t he C onns pur chas ed the domi nantl and f r om t he W i l s ons w i t h not i ce of t he r es t r i ct i ve c o v e n a n t. See Clem ent

v. R . L . B urns Cor

p. , 373 So. 2d 790, 794 ( M i s s . 1979) ( hol di ng t hat “[ p] r i vi t y i m pl i es s ucce s s i on. H e w ho i s i n pr i vi t y s t ands i n t he s hoes ors i t s i n t he s eatof t he ow nerf r om w hom he de r i ves hi s t i t l e”) . Fi nal l y, t he cove nant“t ouches and conc erns ” t he 6 la n d , a s it im p o s e s a b u rd e n o n th e u s e a n d e n jo y m e n t o f t h e la n d . Mil ler , 691 So. 2d at914. T h u s, th e C o n n s p o ss e ss th e rig h t to se e k e n fo rc e m e n t o f th e re stric tiv e c o v e n a n t. I I . M i s i t a’ s “s i gn” i s a s t ruct ure.

### 7

¶ 1 0 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e n o w a n a ly z e w h e th e r th e o b jec t o f th is d isp u te is a stru c tu re o r n o t. “G ener al l y, cour t s do notl oo k w i t h f avoron r es t r i ct i ve cove nant s . ” Kem p v. Lake Se r e ne P r op. O w ners A s s ’n, I

nc. , 256 So. 2d 924, 926 ( M i s s . 1971). “Such cove nant s ar e s ubj ect m ore or les s t o a stri ctcon struct i on and i n the case of am bigui t y, con struct i on i s usual l y m ost s t r ongl y agai ns tt he per s on s eeki ng t he r es t r i ct i on and i n f avorof t he per s on bei ng r es t r i ct ed. ” I

d. “A n i m por t antcor ol l ary rul e, how ever , i s t hatt he cl earand unam bi guous w or di ng of

pr ot ect i ve cove nant s w i l l notbe di s r egar ded mer el y beca us e a us e i s pr ohi bi t ed orr es t r i ct ed. ” A n drew s v. L a k e S ere n e P ro p . O w n ers A ss’n , 4 34 S o. 2 d 13 28 , 13 31 (M i ss. 1983) . “I f

t he i nt entt o pr ohi bi torr es t r i ctbe expr es s ed i n cl earand unambi guous w or di ng, enf or cement is av ai l abl e i n t he court s of t hi s s t at e. ” I

d. “The l anguage of

r es t r i ct i ve covena nt s i s t o be r ead ‘ i n i t s or di nary s ens e, ’ cons i der i ng t he ent i r e documenta s w el l as t he c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g its fo rm u la tio n to a s c e rt a in its m e a n in g , p u rp o s e a n d in te n ts .” 

### Stoke s , 6 5 4 S o . 2 d a t 5 2 7 . ¶1 1 . B o th th e circu m stan ce s an d the p lai n lang u ag e o f the d ee d ev iden ce that the w o rd “s t ructur e” i s cl earand unambi guous and has b roade rappl i cat i on t han s i xt y- t w o- f eet - hi gh b u il d ing s. “A review ing co u rti s co n ce rne d w ith w h at th e co n tr ac ti n g pa rt ies h a v e sa id to eac h ot her , nots om e s ecr ett houghtof one not comm uni cat ed t o t he other . ” R oyerHom es , 857 So. 2d a t752 ( quot i ng Tu rner v. T erry , 799 So. 2d 25, 32 ( M i s s . 2001) ) . T her ef or e, t he l anguage of

t he r es t r i ct i on s houl d be r ead i n i t s “or di nary s ens e. ” ¶ 1 2 . W e fin d th a t M isita’ s “ sig n ” is a “ stru c tu re .” It is a o n e -ro o m stru c tu re , co m p lete w ith ro o f, f lo o r, a irc o n d itio n in g , li g h ts , d o o r w ith w in d o w p a n e s , a n d a s ta ir c a s e , in tera lia . W h ile n o t a b rid g e o r d a m , it is a k in to a b u ild in g o r ed ifice , a n d is cle a rly “ so m e th in g b u ilt

### The l im it ation that theCourt of Appe al s put

upon theexampl e of

a s tr uct ureis not 7 

### con sistent w ith its co mmonusag e, for th ere are manystructures that d o n ot qualifyas a buil ding, dam , or

bridge , e. g., the Was hingt on Monum ent , theSt at ue of Libe rty, or theGre at Sp hin x, inter a lia . InSull ivan , the Court

of Appeal s found that a “m otor homecove r c onsi st [ing] of a 8 

### gabl e- styleroof

suppor te d by post s”viol at ed a

prot ec ti ve c ovenant prohibi ting theer ec ti on of any “stru cture[s]” oth er thana sing le-family dwellin g. S u lli v a n v . K o lb , 742 So. 2d 771, 774- 777 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 1999) 

### 8 o r c o n stru c ted .” D e sp ite its a d a p tab ili ty fo r tra n sp o rt, it h a d n o t b e e n m o v e d sin c e M isita 7
er ect ed i t . T he chanc el l or , w ho physi cal l y i ns pect ed t he structur e, found thati t“i s anchor ed to p ip e s w h ic h a re s u n k in th e g ro u n d a n d M is ita fu rt h e r s e c u re d th e p ip e s b y c o n c re te .” ¶1 3. B l a c k’ s La w Di c t i on a r y de f i ne s a s t ruc tur e a s “ [ a ] ny c on s t r uct i on, pr oduct i on, or pi ece of w or k ar t i f

i ci al l y bui l tup orcomposed of par t s purpos ef

ul l y j oi ned t ogether . ” B lack ’s Law D i ct i onar

y 1464 ( 8t h ed. 2004) . I n S u lli v a n v . K o lb , t he C our tof A ppeal s def i ned 8 “s t ructur e” a s “[ s ] om ethi ng m ade up of a num berof

par t s t hatar e hel d orputt ogetheri n a part i cularw ay. — T he w ay i n w hi ch part s ar e arr anged orputt ogethert o f or m a w hol e; m akeup.

— T he i nt err el at i on ora r r angementof pa r t s i n a c om pl ex ent i t y. — Som ethi ng cons t ruct ed. ” S u lli v a n v . K o lb , 742 So. 2d 771, 777 ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. 1999) ( ci t i ng The A m eri can Heri t ag e C oll ege D i ct i on ary (3d ed . 19 9 3 )). Iti s a struc ture u n d er b o th B lack ’s and Sulli van , as i ti s “compose d of par t s purpos el y j oi ned t ogether . ” W e f i nd no err ori n t he c h a n c e llo r’ s fi n d in g . CO NC L US I ON ¶1 4 . T h e o bjec t o f th is d ispu te i s a struc ture. T h ere fore , th e ch an ce ll o r did n o t er r in fi n d in g th a t it v io la te d th e p ro v is io n “ th a t n o s tru c tu re s a re to b e e re c te d o n th is p ro p e rt y .” W hi l e w e af

f i r m t he C our tof

A ppeal s ’ j udgm entthatthe r es t r i ct i ve cove nanti s enf or cea bl e,

### 9

we r e v e r s e th e j u d g me n to f th e C o u r to f

Ap p e a l s th a tth e “ s i g n ” i s n o ta s t ru c tu r e , a n d we r ei ns t at e and a f

f i r m t he j udgm entof

t he C hance r y C our tof

A dams C ount y. ¶ 1 5 . THE J UDGM EN T OF THE COURT OF AP P EA LS I S AF F I RM ED I N P ART AND REVERSED I N PA RT . THE J UDG M ENT OF THE AD AM S CO UNTY CHANCE RY COURT I S RE I NS TA TE D AND A F F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR .