1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Marc h 28 , 201 6 4 N O. 33, 850 5 ELDO RADO COMMUNIT Y IMPROVEME NT 6 ASSOCI ATI ON, INC., 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v

. 9 SUSAN BI LLI NGS, DAVID BO RTON, 10 DEVRA BORTO N, and ERIC W IL SON, 11 D ef

en da nts -Appe llants , 12 an d 13 GRE G C OLELL O, ROS E WINS TON , and 14 GER SHON N. SIEGEL , 15 D ef

en da nts

. 16 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 17 M ar k A . M ac ar on , D ist ri ctJu dg e 18 Cas su tt , Hay s & Fri ed m an , P.A. 1 9 J o h n P

. Ha ys 20 San ta Fe, NM 21 for Appellee1 Van Am

be rg , Rog ers , Yepa , Abei ta , Gom ez & Work s, LLP 2 Ronald J. V anAm

berg 3 San ta Fe, NM 4 fo r Appe llants1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} T his c as e pit s a subdiv isi on ass oc ia tio n aga ins t se ve ra l su bdi vis ionr es ide nts 4 who ke ep he ns as p et s. Th e d is pu te is ov er a s ub di vi s i o n c o ve na nt th atdi sa ll ows 5 “ an im al s, bir ds, or

pou ltr y ” on re sid en ts’ lot s un le ss k ep t a s “ re co gni ze d ho use hol d 6 pe ts. ” T he subd ivi sio n as soc ia tio n sue d the de fe ndant he n ow ne rs to ri d th ei r 7 pr ope rt ie s of

he ns. T he de fe ndants (th e owner s) c la im ed that the ir

he ns m et

the 8 recognized househo ld pet exception. On m otion s for su m m ary j udgm ent, the district 9 co urt a gr ee d w iththe sub div isi on a sso ci at iona nd re qui re d the ow ne rs to r em ove the ir 10 he ns fr om the ir lot s. In thi s O pin ion , w e at tim es re fe r to “ ch ic ke ns” a nd t o “ he ns” but 1 1 w e a l s o u s e “ p o u l t ry , ” b e c au s e “ p o u l t ry ” ap p e a r s i n S e c t i o n 1 1 o f t h e s ub d i v i s ion 1 2 co v en an t s an db ec au s e t h e p ar t i es co n ce n t ra t e o n u s i n g “ p o u l t ry” in t h ei r b ri ef s . We 13 hold that the restrictive covenant does n ot disallo w the ow ners from keeping hens that 14 ar e re co gni ze d a s ho use hol d pe ts and tha t the dis tri ct c ourt e rr ed in re qui ri ng the 15 ow ne rs to re m ove the he ns. 16 BACKGRO UND 17 { 2} E ldo ra do a t S an taF e Su bdi vis ionis a re sid en tia l de ve lop m en t l oc at ed in Santa 18 Fe Co unty , N ewMe xic o, a nd w as e sta bli she d in 1972 w ith pr ote ct ive co ve na nts

. T he 19 1972 covena n t s s t at ed that their purpose “ is to perpetuate . .

. the rich qualities23 T he pe rti ne nt 1972 c ove na nt p ro vis ionr eg ar din g pe ts r ea ds: “N o anim al s, 1 24 birds[,] or poultry

shall be kept or m aintained o n an y lot, except r ecognized 25 hous ehold pets which m ay be kept thereon in reasonable n um bers as pets for pleasure 26 an d us e of

the oc cu pa nts but not f or a ny c om m er ci al use or

pur pose . N otw ith standi ng 2 1 pe cu liar to the pa sto ra l e nvi ro nm en t f or the be ne fi t of

a ll w ho ac qui re pr ope rty

w ith in 2 the Eldorado Ranch. ” T he original 19 72 c ov e na nts w ere replace d in 19 96 byam ended 3 an d r es ta te d pr ote ct ive co ve na nts (h er ei na ft er , the co ve na nts ) fo llo w ing ac ove nant 4 el ec tio n in 1995

. T he c ove na nts state that the ir pur pose , a m ong oth er

pur pose s, is to 5 pr ovi de “ ana ttr ac tiv e rura l se tti ng fo r re sid en tia l ne ighbor hood s an d ho m e sit es ” an d 6 to e nc our ag e “ ind ivi dua l e xpr es sio n c onsi ste nt w iththe his tor ic al tr ad iti ons of the 7 re gio n. ” T he pla int if

f he re , E ldo ra do C om

m uni ty I m pr ove m en t A sso ci at ion , I nc . ( the 8 as s o ci at i o n ), h as m an y s ub d i v i s i o n -r el at ed ad m i n i s t ra t i v e t as k s , n o tt h e least of w hich 9 is t o e nf

or ce vio la tio ns o f the c ove na nts

. 10 { 3} A t i ssu e in this c as e is S ec tio n 11 of the c ove na nts , w hic h r ea ds: 1 1 H o u s e h o l dp e t s . N o a n i m a l s , b i r d s [ , ] o r p o u l t ry s h a l l b e k e p tor 12 m ai nta ine d ona ny lot , ex ce pt re co gni ze d hous eh old pe ts w hic h m ay be 13 ke pt the re on i n r ea sona ble num be rs a s pe ts f

or the ple as ur e an d us e of 14 the occupants bu t not for any com m ercia l use or purpose. It is forbidden 15 to p er

m it dogs to run a t l arg e in E ldo ra do. A t a ll tim es , dog s m ust be 16 kept, re strained[,] and co n t ro l led by their owner s in the m anner 17 de sc rib ed in th e San ta Fe Co un ty A ni m al Co nt ro l Ord in an ce. A 18 m ax im

um of tw o ho rs es m ay

be ke pt o n any

lot w hic h ha s an are a in 19 ex ce ss o f thr ee ac re s an d w hic h ha s be enpr ope rl y de sig na te d, pur suant 20 to the se c ove na nts , a s ahor se a re a on any r ec or de d subdiv isi on m ap or 21 by

m aj ority vote of the Board of D irectors. A stable for such horses m ay 22 be e re ct ed

upo n su chlot

. 118 the f

or eg oin g, am ax im

um of tw o ho rs es m ay

be ke pt o n any

lot w hic h ha s an are a in 19 excess of three acre s and which m ay be designated by[E ldorado at Santa Fe, Inc. ] as 20 a h or se area , and a st ab le forsu ch ho rs es m ay be erec te d u po n s uc h l ot .” 3 1 N o othe r se ct ion in the co ve na nts ha s an y dir ec t be ar ing on ke ep ing an im al s, bir ds, 2 or pou ltr y on r es ide nti al lot s. 3 { 4} Section 11 forbids residenti al lot owners from keeping po ultry on residential 4 lots in the subdi visio n. A t the sam e tim e, Sec tio n 11 prov ides an exception th at 5 pe rm its pou ltr

y a s w el l as an im al s or bir ds t o be ke pt o n r es ide nti al lot s un de r ce rt ai n 6 co ndi tio ns, na m el y , a s lo ng a s th e poul tr y ar e “ re co gni ze d hous eh old pe ts

. . . fo r the 7 ple as ur e an d us e of

the oc cu pa nts [, ] ” ke pt o n th e lot

in re as ona

ble num be rs , a nd “ not 8 [kept] for any

com m ercia l use or purpose.” There exists no issue here a s to num ber 9 of he ns or as to com

m er ci al use or pur

pose . N oth ing in S ec tio n 11 giv es f re e re ignto 10 expansiv e poultry

operations and no issue exists as to any such use here. 11 { 5} Both sides filed m otion s fo r summ ary j udgm ent. N either side argued that 12 ge nui ne iss ue s of

m at er ia l f

ac t e xis te d th at w oul d pr ec lud e sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he 13 district court determ ined that “ [t] he term s ‘ recog ni z e d hou sehold p ets’ are not defined 14 in the co v en an t s and are not clear on their face [, ] ” in part because “ [a] subst antial 15 num be r of hom eo w ne rs an d pe rs ons as soc ia te d w ith the E ldo ra do Su bdi vis ionha ve 16 dis ag re ed

f or y ea rs about the m eanin g of

the c ovenant l an gua ge in iss ue . ” A s to 17 int er pr et ing the c ri tic al , a m

big uous w or ds, the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at c hic ke ns4

1 w er e not

r ec ogni ze d ho use hol d pe ts and c oul d not be ke pt o r m ai nta ine d ona ny lot 2 in the sub divis ion. The court granted the association’s m otion and ordered the owner s 3 to r em ove the ir

c hic ke ns f

ro m the ir pr ope rt ie s. T he ow ne rs appe al

. Mo re f ac ts w ill 4 ap pe ar in the dis cu ssi on tha t f

oll ow s. 5 DISC US SION 6 Stand ard of R eview 7 { 6} Be ca

use the re e xis ts n o ge nui ne iss ue of m at eri al f

ac t, by a gr ee m en t of

the 8 parties and determ ination by the district court, we are relieved of a burden of concern 9 ab out the e xis te nc e of

suc h an is sue . “ In te rp re ta tio n of la ng ua ge in a re str ic tiv e 10 covenant is a questio n of law that we reviewde novo.” E sta tes at D es er t R idg e Trail

s 11 Hom eowners’ A ss’n v. V azqu ez , 2013 -N MC A -0 51, ¶ 11, 300 P

. 3d 7 36; He ltman v. 12 Catana ch , 201 0- N MC A -0 16, ¶ 5, 148 N

. M. 67, 229 P

. 3d 1 239. 13 De finitions 14 { 7} Be ca

use the iss ue s inthi s c as e fo cu s on the m eanin g of ce rt ai n c ove na nt t er m s, 15 we begin with definition s. A“ bird” is “ any of a class

. . . of w arm -blooded vertebrate s 16 dis tin gui she d by

ha vin g th e body

m or e or le ss c om ple te ly c ove re d w ith fe athe rs a nd 17 the forelim

bs m odified as wings.” M erria m -W eb ste r’ s C oll eg iat e D ic tio nary125 18 (11th ed. 2005 ). A “ chicken” is a “ com m on dom esti c f

o wl [. ] ” Id

. a t 21 3; O

xf ord 19 Di ct iona ries , www . ox f orddiction aries. com

/us/d efinition/am erican_ engli sh/chicken5

1 (“A d o m es t i c fo wl k ep t fo r it s eg g s o r m ea t [. ]”) . A “ h en ” is “ a fe m al e c h i ck en [. ]” 2 M er ria m -W

eb ste r’ s C oll eg iat e D ic tio nary 580; Ox ford Dictiona ries , 3 w w w . oxf

or ddi ct ion ar ie s. co m

/us /de fi nit ion/a m er ic an

_e ngl ish /he n ( “ A f

em al e bir d, 4 especially

of a dom estic fowl.” ). A “ fowl” is a “ bird of any kind[.] ” Mer ri am5 W e b s t e r ’ s C o l l e g i a t e D ic tio nary 495 ; Ox ford Dictiona ries , 6 www .ox fo rd di ct io na rie s.co m /u s/ de fin it io n/ am eri can_e ng li sh /fo wl (“ A gal li na ce ous 7 bi rdke pt ch ie fly for i ts eg gs a n d f l e s h[ .] ”). Ch ic ke ns are p ou lt ry . Se e Mer ri am8 W eb ste r’ s Co lle gia te D ic tio nary 972. “ Po ultry ” ar e “ dom es tic at ed bir ds k ep t f

or e ggs 9 or m eat[. ] ” Id

. ; Ox ford Dictiona ries , w w w . oxf or ddi ct ion ar ie s. co m

/us /de fi nit ion/ 10 am er ic an

_e ngl ish /po ultry (d ef

ini ng “ poul tr

y ” as “ [d ] om es tic f

ow l, suc h a s c hic ke ns, 11 turkey s, ducks, and geese. ”). Finally , “ a d om esticated ani m al kept for pleasure r ather 12 th an ut il it y ” an d “ ke pt fo r co m pa ni on sh ip orpl eas ur e” i s a p et

. Merriam- W ebster’s 13 Co lle gia te D ic tio nary926 ; Ox ford Dictiona ries , w w w . o x f o r d d i c t i o n a r i e s . c o m

/u s/ 14 de fi nit io n/ am e r i c an

_ e n g l i s h/ p e t ( d e f i n i n g “ pe t” a s “ [a ] dom es tic or tam ed a nim al ke pt 15 fo r co m

panio nshi p or

ple as ur e” ). T he part ie s do not spar m uc h ove r w ha t a “ pe t” is. 16 T he de fi nit ion s do not sta te tha t pe ts cannot al so ha ve uti lity . Fo r pur pose s he re , he ns 17 ke pt a s asourc e of

e ggs ar e poul tr

y , a nd h en s a lso ke pt as a sour ce of c om pa nio nshi p 18 or ple as ur e can be ape t. I t i s m an if es tly unc le ar , how ev er , w ha t “ re co gni ze d” m eans.6

1 Th e D ist ri ctC ou rt ’s D ec isi on 2 { 8} W e com

m end the district court for favoring the parties with a detailed letter 3 de ci sio n th at

inc lud ed pr oc ed ur al his tor

y , ar gum en ts, ap pli ca

ble law , le ga l ana ly se s, 4 ev ide nc e inc lud ing his tor ic al f ac ts, a nd the c ourt’ s ana ly se s and i nte rp re ta tio ns and 5 views about the covenants and the words in Sec tion 1 1. It is f rom the court’ s letter 6 de ci sio n th at

the a sso ci at ionpr im ar ily hin ge s it s arg um en ts. 7 { 9} T he dis tr ic t c ourt ci te d our Su pr em e Co urt’ s f

our unc ha nge d r

ule s f or 8 int er pr et ing r es tr ic tiv e co ve na nts se t ou t i n H ill v . Co m m uni tyof D am ie n of M olo ka i , 9 1996 -N MS C- 008, ¶

6, 121 N

. M. 353, 911 P. 2d 8 61. “ [I ] f the langua ge is unc le ar or 10 am big uous , [ the appe llate c ourts] w ill r es olv e the r es tr ic tiv e co ve na nt i n f av or of the 11 free enj oym ent of the pro p er t y and against restrictions.” Id

. T he appe llate c ourts 12 “ m ust int er pr et the c ove na nt r ea sona

bly , but str ic tly , so as not to cr eate anil log ic al , 13 unnatu ral, or strained construction.” Id

. W e “ w ill not re ad

r es tr ic tio ns o n th e use a nd 14 enj oym ent of the land into the covenant byim plication.” Id

. W e “ m ust giv e w or ds i n 15 the restrictive c ovenant th eir ordinary and intended m eaning.” Id

. These rules 16 constitu te “ our four rules for c onstrui ng restrictive covenants[.] ” Saba tin i v

. R oy bal , 17 2011 -N MC A -0 86, ¶

13, 150 N

. M. 478 , 261 P. 3d 1110. “ Fa ilure to a ppl y the r ule s of 18 construction [of r estrictive covenants] is an err or of law .” Id

. ¶ 7.7

1 { 10} Although it explicitlyacknowledged the four H ill ru le s of

int er pr et at io n, the 2 dis tr ic t c ourt f

oc use d it s a tte nti on o n an ana ly sis in Agua Fria Save the O pen Spa ce 3 Ass’n v. R owe , 2011 -N MCA -054, 149 N .M. 812, 255 P. 3d 39 0, in w hich this Court 4 he ld tha t “ ex tr ins ic e vid en ce is adm iss ibl e to e xpl ai n or c lari fy , but

not to vary

or 5 contradict, a restrictive covenant ’ s term s.” Id

. ¶ 21. T he dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed that A gua 6 F ria ’ s a ppr oa chdid

not obl iga te the co urts to ap ply the r ule of str ic t c onstru ct ionin 7 re sol vin g af

ac tua l di sput e re ga rd ing the r es tr ic tiv e co ve na nt’ s m eanin g. 8 { 11} I n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt , r e l y i n g o n A gua F ria , the a ssociation focused on a view 9 tha t the c ove na nt langua ge in que sti on una m big uous ly se t a c om m uni ty -w ide 10 standard as to wha t i s a“ re co gni ze d ho use hol d pe t” —m ea nin g th e standard

m ust 11 “ co m e fr om the E ldo ra do com m uni ty thr ough the [ d] em oc ratic pr oc es s of a m en din g 12 the [ c] ove na nts [. ] ” A lth ough , a t the sa m e tim e, the a sso ci at ionbr oa de ne d th is 13 standard to a “ broader society ” standard and offer ed testim ony about the pet chicken 14 tr en d na tio na lly

. T he a sso ci at iona lte rn at ive ly a rg ue d th at

if the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound 15 ana m big uity , the a ff

idavit s and e vid en ce of

fe re d f ro m ind ivi dua ls i n th e loc al a nd 16 national comm

unitysuppo rted a f

indin g that “ a chicken is .

. . not a recognized 17 hous eh old

pe t” a nd tha t, a lth ough“ [p ] eo ple m ay li ke the m

[ an d] the y

w an t t o have 18 th em as p et s[ ,]

. . . it do es n’t m eet th e st an da rdin th is co m m un it y .”8

1 { 12} The district court ultim ate l y a gr e e d w i t

h the owners that the phrase “ recognized 2 hous ehold pets” was not defined in the covenant s an d wa s unclear on its face. 3 How ever, upon de t erm ining that the covenant was am bigu ous, the district court 4 loo ke d to A gua F

ria an d in doi ng s o w en t be y ond our S upr em e Co urt’ s in te rp re ta tiv e 5 ru le s fo r de te rm in in g re st ric ti ve co ve na nt m ean in g. A gua F ria sta te s th at ex tr ins ic 6 ev ide nc e can be a dm itt ed to ex pla in or cl ar if

y a re str ic tiv e co ve na nt’ s te rm s to o bta in 7 co nte xtu al und er standi ng and h old s th at “ a co urt m ay he ar evide nc e of the 8 circum stances surroundi ng the m aking of the contract and any rele vant usage of trade, 9 course of dealin g, and course of per form ance. ” 2011-NMCA -054, ¶ 20 (internal 10 qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. A gua F ria al s o s t at es t h at t h e S up re m e C o u rt ’s 11 “ rule of strict construction m ust be sub ordinate to th e i n t ention o f the parties a s 12 re fl ec te d by

the langua ge of the w hol e ins tr um en t, the c ir cu m stanc es sur ro undi ng the 13 tr an sa ct ion , a nd the pur pose s anim at ing the r estri ct ions” a nd tha t the r ule f av or ing 14 fr ee en

j oym en t an d ag ai nst re str ic tio ns “ cannot be ap pli ed to de fe at th e o bvi ous 15 purpos e of the re strictions.” Id

. ¶ 1 8 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). 16 A gua F

ria hold s th at , w he n in te rp re tin g r es tr ic tiv e co ve na nts , “ [t ] he int en t of the 17 parties .

. . govern[s] .” Id

. (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 18 { 13} To a n i mat e t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l r u l e s o f i n t e r pr et at io n, A gua F

ria , which addressed 19 th e pr op rie ty

of agr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t, r el ie d onavie wthat r es tr ic tiv e9

1 covenan t s ar e co ntracts and are to be interpreted under the rules of contract 2 int er pr et at ionse t ou t i n C. R

. A nth onyCo

. v . L ore tto M all P art ne rs , 199 1- N MS C

- 0 70, 3 ¶¶ 12- 18, 112 N

. M. 504 , 817 P

. 2d 2 38, a nd M ark V , I nc . v . M el le ka s , 1993-NMS C4 001, ¶¶ 9-13, 114 N.M. 778, 845 P.2d 1232 . T he A gua F ria Court felt fr ee to consider 5 ex tr ins ic e vid en ce to ex pla in the pur pose s and c ont ex tua l un de rs tandi ng unde rl y ing 6 r es tri ct iv e co ve na nt s as th ou gh th e co ve na nt s wer e a co nt ract

. A gua F ria , 201 1- 7 N MC A -0 54, ¶

¶ 20- 21. It fe lt fr ee , the n, to con sid er ev ide nc e sur ro undi ng the m ak ing 8 of the c ontra ct

a nd of an y rel ev ant us ag e of tr ad e, c our se of

de al ing , a nd c our se of 9 pe rfo rm an ce. Id . A nd the A gua F ria Co urt co nc lud ed tha t “ the co ur ts are not 1 0 obl iga te dt o ap p l y

t h e r u l e o f s t r i c tc o n s t r

u c t i o n . . . r e g a r d i n g [ a ] r e s t r ic tiv e 11 covenant’ s m eaning.” Id

. ¶ 21. 12 { 14} The district court in the case now before us treated the covenants as a c ontract 13 an d cal le d on the co ntr ac t i nte rp re ta tio n r ule s st at ed

in A gua F

ria , Mark V

, a ndC.R. 14 A nth ony . I n granti ng sum m ar y j udgm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the ow ne rs ’ 15 int er pr et at ionof Se ct ion11 w as “ inc onsi ste nt w iththe uni fo rm ity c ont em pla te d by 16 the covenants” and would “ create an illogical result[.] ” T he district court determ ined 17 that the owners’ interpretation would “ render the c ovenant m eaningless” and was 18 “ inc onsi ste nt w ith the int en t an d pur pose s of the co ve na nts w he n ana ly ze d un de r the 19 m odern rule of construction and results in foreseea ble illog ical re sults when analy zed10

1 under the general rule of construction .” In additio n, the district c our t ex p re s s ed 2 co nc er n th at “ [c ] onstru ing the c ove na nt t o a llo wind ivi dua l owne rs c om ple te f r e ed om 3 to design ate any creature they want as a househo ld pet would frustrate the purposes 4 of t he c ov e nant s a nd

c r e a t e ad a ng e r ou s pr e c e de nt l e a vi ng o t he r

p r op e rt y o w ne rs 5 without [any ] rec ourse (unless it wa s a nuisance under the covenants).” F urtherm ore, 6 the court determ ined that the owners’ interpretation “ would open th e door to an 7 unl i m i t e dm

u l t i tu d e o f

d i f f e r e n tk i n d s o f

c r e a tu r e s b e i n g k e p t

i n s i d e a n do u t s i d e of 8 hom es . . . w ith out

r eg ulat io n or c ontro l un de r the c ove na nts ( ex ce pt nuis an ce s) 9 leaving the oth er h o m eowner s without recourse.” These determ ination s wer e 10 sig nif ic an tly dr ive n by

the ass oc ia tio n’ s e xtr ins ic e vid en ce of fe re d to unc ove r the 11 co ve na nt s’ ori gi na l m ean in g. 12 The E vidence 13 { 15} The dist ri ct court considered the develop er’ s 1972 covenants and even 14 considered the reputation o f t he subdi visio n in the 19 70s and 1 980s . I t considered 15 ev ide nc e tha t the a sso ci at ionhis tor ic al ly vie w ed the c ove na nt n ot to pe rm it 16 ch ic ke ns— a his tor

y , a s e xpl ai ne d by the co urt, that i ndi cate d th at c hic ke ns h ad

not 17 be en co ns id ered by

the a sso ci at iona s r ec ogni ze d ho use hol d pe ts and tha t the 18 as soc ia tio n ha d hi sto ri ca lly take n e nf or ce m en t a ct ion ag ai nst ind ivi dua l ow ne rs w ho 19 had chickens on their property . A lso, acc ording to the court, no historical evidence11

1 ex ist ed that c hic ke ns o r oth er

li ve sto ck ha d be en c ont em pla te d by the de ve loper

or 2 acce pted by

the association as allowable. 3 { 16} The a ssociation ’ s evidence in m aj or part consisted o f affidavits. W illiam 4 Donohue, w ho was genera l m anager of the association b eginnin g in 20 06, provided 5 an aff idavit and d ocum ents relating to what the association’s “policy an d practice” 6 w as a nd h ad

be en . H e al so r ep orte d on th e as so cia tio n’ s pl an nin g and e nf or ce m en t 7 activities, on its grants of variances, and on ho lding an election on p roposed 8 al te rn at ive c ove na nt am en dm en ts. Mark Co nkl ing , wh o se rv ed

a s m an ag er

of the 9 association from

1987 to 199 5, as a

m em ber o f t h e association’ s architectural 10 com m ittee, and as a m em

ber of the association’s bo ard of direc tors, also provided an 11 affidavit. Conklin g was one of the first h om e b uilders in the sub divis ion and p rovided 12 som e inf

orm at ionin his affi da vi t subj ec t t o va lid he ar say , spe cu la tio n, a nd l ac k of 13 fo undatio n ob

j ec tio ns. 14 { 17} Inthe ow ne rs ’ vie w , e ve n w er e the fo re goi ng e xtr ins ic e vid en ce a llo w ab le , a ny 15 opi nio n of the curr en t as soc ia tio n board or pa st board s, an y sur m ise d in te nt of the 16 or igi na l de ve lop er

in 1972 , a ny

sur m ise d in te nt o f vot er s in199 5 a pa rt f ro m the 1 7 l a n g u a g e i n t h e c o v e n a n t , a n d a n y h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e db y as ub d i v i s i o n h o me 18 bui lde r, c onst itu te d e lus ive ly spe cu la tiv e an d f

le et ing e vid en ce . S pe ci fi ca lly , thi s 19 ev ide nc e co nsi ste d of unr el ia ble f ac tor s th at w er e change ab le at an y giv enti m e due12

1 to c hange s in as soc ia tio n m em be rs hip an d re sid en tia l m ak eu p and d ep en din g onw ho 2 a ta n y g i v e n t i me mi g h tb e i n t e rp r e t i n g S e c t i o n 1 1 , wi t h c o n t r a ry v i e w s a l w a ys 3 pr es en t. A cc or din g to the ow ne rs , ev en if a llo w ab le , the e xtr ins ic e vid en ce c oul d no t 4 supp ort an in te rp re ta tio n th at S ec tio n 11 f

la tly f or bid s he ns. 5 { 18} T he a sso ci at iona lso pr es en te d an af fi da vit of D r. K

ri sty Pa bil oni a, a n a sso ci at e 6 pr of es sor a nd dia gnos tic ve te ri nari ana t C olo ra do S ta te U niv er sity , a nd an e xpe rt in 7 co m m er ci al pou ltr

y pop ula tio ns and ba cky ar d po ultry f loc ks, both r

ur al a nd urb an . 8 D r. P ab ilo nia

dis cu sse d di se as e fo und in f loc ks an d op ine d a s to the c la ssi fi catio n of 9 backy ard poultry

flocks. S he stated that “ [p ] oultry has not his torically

been 10 co nsi de re d ‘ hous eh old pe ts, ’ and tr ad iti ona l ho use hol d pe ts, suc h a s do gs and c at s, 11 are not regulated as agricultural anim als by the US DA .” Sh e further stated that her 12 scientific survey s of o wner s of b acky ard p oultry flocks showed that 86% m aintained 13 chickens as a source of f ood, m eat, o r eg gs, and that 42% m aintained chickens as 14 pets, com

panion s, or hobb y anim als. I n additio n, she stated that “ keeping backy ard 15 poul try

flocks for any

purpose, includin g as a source of f ood, m eat[, ] or eggs, or a s 16 hobb y anim als, has becom e a signi ficant phenom enon only within the past te n y ears 17 [o r] so, sin ce the m id- 2000 s. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that “ [t ] his sig nif

ic an tly 18 ind ic at es tha t in br oa de r soc ie ty [, ] ch ic ke ns ar e not re co gni ze d a s ho use hol d pe ts b y 19 m os t.”13

1 { 19} T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rta l s o f o u n dt o b e s i g n i f

i c a n tt h e v o t e i n as ub d ivi sio n2 sponso red el ec tio n he ld i n 20 12, r el at ing to tw o pr opos ed c ha nge s to S ec tio n 11 3 language, one allowing chickens and one not allowing chickens. Pr esum ably based 4 on the a ss oc i a t i ona r gu m e nt s t hatb y av ot e o f

5 5. 4% t o 44

. 6% t he vo tin g 5 hom eo w ne rs r ej ec te d th e pr opos ed c ove na nt am en dm en t tha t w oul d have spe ci fi ca lly 6 allowed chickens under the Section 11 definition of “ hous ehold pets,” the court 7 co nc lu d e dt h a tt h e v o t i n g h o m e o w n e r s o f t h e s ub d i v i s i o n v o t e dn o tt o i n c l u de 8 chickens within the m eaning of “ hous ehold pets” un der the covenant language. 9 { 20} Th e o wn er s d es cr i b e t h e e l ec t i o n d i ff er en t l y. In t h ei r v i ew , t h e a s s o ci at i o n ’s 10 ar gum en ts f

ai l be ca use the c ove nants r equir e th at 50% plu s on e of a ll subd ivi sio n 11 pr ope rty

ow ne rs ha d to vot e in f av or of a n a m en dm en t f

or it to be e na ct ed

. T he 12 ow ne rs sho wthat of

the tot al of

sub div isi on p ro pe rty

ow ne rs , onl y 35. 07 % vot ed f or 13 a co ve nant tha t w oul d e xpr es sly f or bid he ns; 29. 99% vot ed fo r a cov en an t tha t w oul d 14 ex pr es sly

a llo wr es ide nts to ke ep pe t he ns o n th ei r pr ope rty ; l eavin g 35. 04% of the 15 subd ivi sio n r es ide nts w ho d id n ot v ote

. T he vot e w as the re fo re ins uf fi ci en t un de r the 16 covenants for any

am endm ent to be adopted, and the election left in place the original 17 acknowledge d ambiguity . T herefor e, the owners argue that the election was an “ ad 18 hoc inc onc lus ive opi nio n po ll[ ] ” ha vin g no be ar ing on c ove na nt i nte rp re ta tio n.14

1 The C ovenant M ust Be Const rued to F avor the Owners 2 { 21} T he not ion s e xpr es se d in the c ove na nts of m ai nta ini ng the “ pa sto ra l” a nd 3 “ rura l” na tur e of

the a re a an d th e his tor ic al tr ad iti ons of the re gio n w oul d a

ppe ar to 4 le nd the m se lve s to al low ing an im al s, bir ds, an d poul tr y as re co gni ze d pe ts. If t he 5 Eldorado com

m unitydid no t want pou ltry because poultry

we re not rec ogn i ze d as 6 hous eh old

pe ts, it is re as ona

ble to ass um e tha t the r es ide nts w oul d have r em ove d th e 7 language that anticipates and p erm its pou ltry as househo ld pets. W e do not thinkthat 8 it is r ea sona

ble to re ad

the la ng ua ge of

S ec tio n 11 to re fl ec t an in te nt tha t the onl y 9 w ay pou ltr y c oul d be “ re co gni ze d” as hous eh old pe ts w as if the as soc ia tio n or a larg e 10 num be r but le ss tha n am aj or ity

of lot ow ne rs r ec ogni ze d po ultry a s su ch

. 11 { 22} W e ag re e w ith th e di st ri ct c ourt tha t the c ove na nt l an gua ge w as unc le ar a nd 12 am big uous . A m

big uity is cr eate d w he n pr ovi sio ns are r ea sona bly a nd f ai rl y 1 3 s u s c e p t i b l e t o d i f

f e r e ntco ns tru ct io ns . L e v e ns on v. Mobley , 198 7- N MS C- 102, ¶ 7, 106 14 N

. M. 399, 74 4 P.2 d 17 4. I n li ght of the am big uity , the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have 15 ap pli ed

the r ea soni ng i n H

ill , which a ddressed a

restrictive c ovenant go verning us e, 16 not the r ea soni ng i n A gua F ria , wh i ch a d d r es s ed an ambi g u i t y i n a l an d o wn er ’s 17 ab ili ty to exti ng ui sh r es tr ic tiv e co ve na nts und er asa vin g c lause in re str ic tiv e 1 8 co v en an t s . Th e a m

b i g u i t y wa s n o ti n an y p ar t i cu l ar re s t ri ct i v e co v en an t as t o u s e. We 19 se e no r ea sona

ble ba sis in the ca se pr es en tly be fo re us on whi ch to tre at e nf or ce m en t15

1 of the covenants go verning the us e of lots as a contrac t to be gov erned by the rules 2 an d a ppr oa chuse d in A gua F

ria

. H ill , r athe r than A gua F

ria , gov er ns this c as e. T he 3 fa ct s he re a nd i n H

ill dif fe r sig nif ic an tly fr om the fa ct s in A gua F ria

. A gua F

ria did 4 not r es olv e an am

big uity in a

c ove na nt g ove rn ing use . A nd r es tr ic tiv e use c ove nants 5 inv olv e va lua

ble pr ope rty ri ght s an d ex tr ins ic ev ide nc e shou ld n ot p ro vid e the ba sis 6 fo r int er

pr et at ionof

tho se c ove na nts

. 7 { 23} In A gua F

ria , the iss ue on a

ppe al w as w heth er, as a m atte r of law , the 8 de fe ndant d ev el ope r ha d pr ope rl y e xti ngui she d r es tr ic tiv e co ve na nts on a tr ac t of 9 un d e v e l o p e d l a n d ( t h e c o u n t ry c l ub t r a c t ) p u r s u a n t t o a “ s a v i n g c l au s e . ” 201 1- 10 N MC A -0 54, ¶

¶ 2- 9. T he pla int if

f in A g ua F

ria ar gue d th at

the e xti ngui shm en t 11 pr ovi sio n inthe sa vin g c lause did not ap pl y to th e co untry c lub tr ac t, a nd thus, the 12 de ve lo pe r sh ou ld no t h av e b e e n p erm it te d t o e xt in gu is h re st ric ti ve co ve na nt s. Id

. 13 ¶¶ 9, 14. T his Court ult im ately determ ined that the savin g clause wa s am bigu ous as 14 ap pl ie d t o t he tra ct , id

. ¶ 17, a nd the n pr oc ee de d to a na ly ze the sa vin g c lause pur suant 15 t o c o n tra ctlaw. Id

. ¶¶ 18-25. T he A gua F ria opin ion’s broad sw ath of contract 16 interpretation of am

bigu ous restrictive covenant s could no t have purposelybeen 17 int en de d to ap ply

to re str ic te d land u se . T he e xti ngui shm en t pr ovi sio n inthe sa vin g 18 cl au se did

not a nd w as not

int en de d to pla ce a ny ad dit ion al r es tr ic tio ns o n th e use of 19 la nd

. A gua F

ria is the re fo re sig nif

ic an tly dis tin gui sha

ble

. T o th at en d, w e fi rm ly sid e16

1 with a viewthat the m eaning of am bigu ous restrictive us e p rovisio ns shou ld be tested 2 under the H

ill qu al ifi ers an d n ot un de r co nt ract in te rp ret at io n ru le s. 3 { 24} W e sus pe ct

that the int er

pr et ive vari an ce s be tw ee n A gua F ria an d H ill stem 4 fr om the ty

pe s of iss ue s th at

the part ie s so ught

to re sol ve . I n H

ill , our Suprem e Court 5 co nsi de re d w he the r a gr oup hom e co nstitu te d “ re sid en tia l us e” of apr ope rty

a nd 6 w he the r the ind ivi dua ls in the gr oup hom e w er e a “ sin gle f am ily ” as r equir ed

by the 7 restrictive use covenant. 1996 -N MSC- 008, ¶¶ 7-21. The Court rightly held that, w hen 8 am bigu ous, covenants restricting the use of land should be resolved in f avor of fr ee 9 us e. Id

. ¶ 6. In ap ply ing its te st, the Co urt wa s able to f ull y r es olv e the iss ue s inf

av or 10 of th e p ro pe rty owne rs . Id

. ¶¶ 11, 21, 52. I n A gua F

ria , how ev er , H

ill ’s test li ke ly 11 w oul d no t have f

ull y r es olv ed the m atte r be ca

use th e di spute w as not

dir ec t w ith 1 2 r e g a r d t o t h e u s e o f l a n d

. B e c au s e t h e c o v e n a n t a tiss ue in Agu a F ria de al t w itha 13 pa rty’ s ab il it y

to ex ti ng ui sh co ve na nt s, H ill ’ s fa ct or s re ga rd ing fr ee en j oym en t of

the 14 pr ope rty

an d r e s tr ic tio ns b y

im pli catio n w oul d no t have tr an sla te d and w oul d no t have 15 gui de d th e Co urt i n A gua F ria to a clear

resolution . He re , ap plication o f the H ill 16 factors a lone can and does resolve the issu e. 17 { 25} Further, it is im portant t o ke ep in m ind

that r es tr ic tiv e “ co ve na nts c onst itu te 18 valuable property

rights of the owners of all lots in th e trac t.” M ont oy a v . B arr eras , 19 1970 -N MS C- 111, ¶ 12, 81 N. M. 749, 473 P. 2d 363. Re lianc e on r es tr ic tiv e co ve nants17

1 is a v al ua bl e p ro pe rty rig ht

. W ilcox v. Tim beron Protective A ss’n , 199 0- N MC A -1 37, 2 ¶ 42 , 1 11 N.M. 47 8, 80 6 P .2d 10 68 , abro gat ed on o the r gr ound

s byA gua F

ria , 201 1- 3 N MC A -0 54, ¶ 22. T hus, the ru le s set out by our S upr em e Co urt i n H

ill a re c ontro lli ng 4 i n t he cas e b efo re u s. Se e H ill , 1996-NMS C-008, ¶ 6. T he H ill i nt e r pr e t a tive rules 5 ha ve be en fu ll y

reco gn iz edby thi s C ou rt. Se e Saba tin i , 201 1- N MC A -0 86, ¶ ¶ 7- 10; 6 se e als o W

ilc ox , 1 9 9 0

- N M C A

- 1 3 7 , ¶ 1 8 ( a c kn o w l e d g i n g a f o u r - p a rt t e s t ap p lie s to 7 res tr ic tiv e co ve na nts ); cf

. M ay er v . Sm ith , 2 0 1 5

- N M C A

- 0 6 0 , ¶ 1 7 , 3 5 0 P

. 3d 1 191 8 (s ta tin g th at

“ [t ] his Co urt ha s e sta

bli she d adis tin ct ionbe tw ee n c ontra ct int er pr e t at ion 9 and easem ent interpretation with regar d to extrinsi c evidence”)

. 10 { 26} Wha t the de ve lop er m ay ha ve ha d inm ind , howind ivi dua l a ssoci at ion 1 1 me mb e r s o v e r

t i me ma y h a v e v i e w e dt h e l a n g u a g e , w h e t h e r t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o v e r

t i me 12 suc ce ssf

ull y en fo rc ed Se ct ion 11 w ith out co urt as sis tanc e, a nd any “ co m m uni ty ” or 13 “ br oa de r soc ie ty ” se nse of S ec tio n 11’ s m eanin g, c onst itute f le et ing a nd s pe cu la tiv e 14 pr oof of m eanin g in thi s ca se , as did tha t of D r. P ab ilo nia

r eg ar din g w he n th e adve nt 15 of ch ic ke ns as pe ts m ay ha ve em er ge d inc ont em por ar y soc ie ty

. D r. P ab ilo nia

a ct ua lly 16 co nf irm ed that a sub stanti al pe rc en ta ge of c hic ke n ow ne rs ke ep c hic ke ns a s pe ts. 17 { 27} W e theref

ore disagree that Section 11 disallows hens that can be and are treate d 18 as pe ts. A nd w e dis ag re e tha t t o a llo whe ns a s ho use hol d pe ts c re at es or ope ns up any 19 likely circum stances of ruination as expressed by the association and th e district court18

1 that war

rants an interpretation that allowing the hens as p ets could never h ave been 2 int en de d a t any

ti m e an d un de r an y

c ir cum stanc e. W e are not pe rs ua de d th at in 3 pe rm itt ing pe t ch ic ke ns “ the sky w ill f al l. ” Su chaCh ic ke n L itt le -e sque vie wof 4 poss ible results and calam ity is n o t co nvin cing. W e also disagree w ith an 5 int er pr et at ion tha t wh ethe r he ns m ay be pe rm itt ed

de pe nds on a

m aj or ity vot e of the 6 m em be rs of the a sso ci at ionor

on a vo te of

som e pa rt ic ular num

be r be low50% of 7 vot ing lot

ow ne rs . I f the a sso ciati on or th e lot ow ne rs of

the sub div isi on w an t a 8 differe nt result, the lot o wn er s m ust effec tuate the change through the required 9 co ve nant am en dm en t e le ct ionpr oc es s se t ou t i n th e co ve na nts

. 10 CON CLU SION 11 { 28} Se ct ion11 o f the co ve na nts c an not be e nf or ce d un de r the c ir cu m stanc es in thi s 12 ca se to pr ec lud e the ow ne rs f ro m ke ep ing the ir

he ns a s r ec ogni ze d ho use hol d pe ts. 13 W e re ve rs e the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt. 14 { 29} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 16 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 17 WE CO NCUR: 18

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 19 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e 20

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 21 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e