Title: KELLY v LOVEJOY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13580
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 10, 1977

No. 13580 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA JOHN T. KELLY and NICK1 D. KELLY, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, FLOYD M. LOVEJOY and BEVERLY LOVEJOY, husband and wife, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Pedersen, Herndon & Harper, Billings, Montana Gregory S. Munroe argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Peterson and Hunt, Billings, Montana Kenneth D. Peterson argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: May 6, 1977 Decided: Jt9[\8 1.0 Filed: SOH L ii 1 9 s Mr.Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f s Kelly brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, seeking enforcement of a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant by enjoining defendants Lovejoy from maintaining two horses on t h e i r property. The court enjoined t h e Lovejoys who now appeal t h a t order. W e reverse. A t t h e t i m e t h i s a c t i o n was commenced both p l a i n t i f f s and defendants resided i n a subdivision located a s h o r t d i s t a n c e outside t h e western c i t y l i m i t s of B i l l i n g s , Montana. The sub- d i v i s i o n i s located i n an area t h a t i s primarily r e s i d e n t i a l on t h e e a s t e r n portion located nearest t o t h e c i t y of B i l l i n g s , b u t development becomes less dense a s one nears t h e western boundary. This subdivision, known as t h e Yerger subdivision, w a s p l a t t e d i n 1956 by Henry Yerger. Subsequently i n 1961 r e s t r i c t i v e cove- nants w e r e imposed upon t h e land i n question by Yerger. The p a r t i c u l a r covenant a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal s t a t e s : "That no swine, poultry, goats, o r livestock s h a l l be permitted on t h e premises." This case involves a dispute between two neighbors con- cerning defendants' maintenance of horses on t h e i r property i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e above covenant. The subdivision has a h i s t o r y of its r e s i d e n t s maintaining horses upon t h e i r property. The f i r s t extensive development i n t h e subdivision occurred i n 1966 and horses have been present i n t h e subdivision continuously t h e r e a f t e r . One John M i l l e r , who was t h e second person t o move i n t o t h e subdivision, purchased f i v e l o t s from Yerger. Subse- quently i n 1968 M i l l e r purchased a horse which he maintained on h i s property f o r t h r e e t o four years. M i l l e r constructed a barn and fences on h i s property which remained a t t h e d a t e t h i s a c t i o n w a s commenced. Miller t e s t i f i e d t h a t n e i t h e r Yerger nor any o t h e r r e s i d e n t ever objected t o h i s horse. Marvin Crick moved i n t o t h e subdivision i n 1973. H i s predecessor had maintained a horse on t h e property and a small barn was constructed thereon. Crick has kept a t l e a s t one horse on h i s property from 1973 t o t h e present. Lovejoys moved i n t o t h e Yerger subdivision i n August, 1966. I n i t i a l l y t h e Lovejoys purchased f o u r adjoining l o t s from Yerger. Subsequently, but p r i o r t o t h e commencement of t h i s a c t i o n , Lovejoys purchased two a d d i t i o n a l l o t s which a d j o i n t h e i r o t h e r property. The purpose of both land purchases was t o pro- v i d e an a r e a i n which t o maintain horses near t h e i r home. A barn, haystack and o t h e r improvements i n c i d e n t t o t h e maintenance of horses have been constructed on t h i s property. I n i t i a l l y Lovejoys had one horse on t h e i r property; however i n r e c e n t years two horses have been maintained. Kellys moved i n t o t h e subdivision i n August, 1975, nine years a f t e r t h e Lovejoys. Kelly, a r e a l estate broker, purchased a home located a s h o r t d i s t a n c e west of t h e a r e a i n which Lovejoys keep t h e i r horses. A grassy f i e l d which i s a p l a t t e d , but un- constructed street, s e p a r a t e s t h e p a r t i e s ' property. Kelly t e s t i f i e d t h a t from h i s f i r s t v i s i t t o t h e subdivision he had noticed horses and improvements i n c i d e n t t o t h e i r maintenance such as barns and haystacks. H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a s f u l l y aware t h a t Lovejoys had a t l e a s t one horse p r i o r t o t h e time he purchased h i s home. I n regard t o t h e covenant i n ques- t i o n and h i s f e e l i n g s about its obvious v i o l a t i o n , Kelly t e s t i f i e d : "Q. When you moved i n , i s it c o r r e c t t h a t you were n o t of t h e opinion t h a t horses w e r e r e s t r i c t e d from t h e subdivision? A. I had believed through t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s and had seen t h e t i t l e r e p o r t t h a t l i v e s t o c k was not allowed i n t h e subdivision. "Q. Didn't it cause you any concern t h a t t h e r e w e r e horses obvious i n evidence i n t h e subdivision? A. A t t h a t time I d i d n ' t t h i n k it w a s a problem. "Q. Is it t r u e , then, t h a t a t t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e you acquiesced in the presence of those horses; you didn't care? A. Obviously." A dispute arose between the parties soon after the Kellys' arrival in the subdivision. Apparently the dispute centered around Kellys' dog barking at and harassing Lovejoys' horses. Thereafter Kellys commenced this suit against Lovejoys and requested the court to enjoin Lovejoys from maintaining horses upon their property in violation of the restrictive covenant. The record reveals that Kellys did not make any attempt to resolve the problem by negotiation prior to the commencement of this action. Furthermore Kellys have not sought injunctive relief against Mr. Crick who also maintains a horse on his property in the Yerger subdivision. Lovejoys raise three issues upon appeal: 1. Whether the covenant restricting livestock from the Yerger subdivision applies to horses. 2. Whether the covenant restricting horses from the Yerger subdivision is enforceable against the Lovejoys. 3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting an injunction on the facts of the instant case. As to the first issue, we find absolutely no merit in Lovejoys' contention that horses are not included within the general term of livestock and therefore are not barred from the subdivision. True, the covenant does not specifically state that horses are not permitted in the subdivision. However live- stock is specifically prohibited and any contention that horses are not livestock is absurd. The Montana statutes are filled with definitions of the term livestock which specifically state that horses are contained within this general category. Sections 84-406(3) ; 46-801.1; 46-2901(2), R.C.M. 1947. In view of the clear language of the covenant there is nothing for this Court t o construe. W e have s t a t e d before t h a t where t h e language of a restrictive covenant is p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n and admits of but one meaning, it i s t h e duty of t h i s Court t o d e c l a r e what t h e t e r m s of t h e covenants contain and n o t t o i n s e r t a l i m i t a t i o n not contained t h e r e i n . Higdem v. Whitham, 167 Mont. 201, 536 P.2d 1185. A s t o t h e second i s s u e , t h e Kellys' admitted acquiescence t o t h e presence of Lovejoys' horses c o n s t i t u t e d a waiver and Kellys a r e t h e r e f o r e estopped from a s s e r t i n g t h e r e s t r i c t i v e cove- nant a g a i n s t Lovejoys. Waiver is g e n e r a l l y defined as a voluntary and i n t e n t i o n a l relinquishment of a known r i g h t , claim o r p r i v i l e g e . Mundt v. Mallon, 106 Mont. 242, 76 P.2d 326; Farmers Elevator Company of Reserve v. Anderson, Mont . , 552 P.2d 63, 33 St.Rep. 614. Waiver may be proved by express d e c l a r a t i o n s o r by a course of acts and conduct s o as t o induce t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n and purpose was t o waive. Northwestern F i r e and Marine Insurance Co. v. P o l l a r d , 74 Mont. 142, 238 P. 594. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e Kellys were aware of t h e covenant i n question p r i o r t o t h e purchase of t h e i r home. Kellys v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y waived t h e i r r i g h t t o enforce t h e covenant a g a i n s t Lovejoys by t h e i r acquiescence i n t h e presence of t h e horses. I n view of such waiver Kellys are now estopped t o a s s e r t t h e covenant a g a i n s t Lovejoys. Whether t h e r e has been such acquiescence a s t o d e f e a t t h e enforcement of a v a l i d r e s t r i c t i o n depends upon t h e circum- stances of each c a s e and t h e c h a r a c t e r and m a t e r i a l i t y of t h e permitted breach. Kosel v. Stone, 146 Mont. 218, 404 P.2d 894. I n view of t h e above finding it is unnecessary f o r us t o r u l e upon t h e t h i r d i s s u e . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is reversed and t h e i n j u n c t i o n vacated. The cause is remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r e n t r y of judgment i n favor of defendants Love j oy . - 5 - Justice