After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that construction of a water tower was clearly prohibited by the restrictions. However, the trial court considered the matter of the injunction in light of equitable principles. The public interest in this case will be best served if the proposed water tower is constructed as planned. The trial court stated that the restrictive covenant did not act equitably and did not provide any benefit or substantial value to either party. Appellants' request for an injunction was denied.
Appellants appeal the trial court's ruling.
On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not specific enough to inform the parties of their current and future legal rights. These issues were not part of the declaratory judgment motion. No action or proceedings shall be dismissed or stayed for the sole reason that only declaratory relief has been sought. The function of a declaratory judgment action pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1701 is to provide a speedy and flexible method for determining the rights and obligations of parties in cases of actual controversy where there is actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right. In its petition, the County asked the trial court for a declaratory judgment as to whether the restrictive covenants of Paganica subdivision prohibited the construction of a water tower.