Opinion ID: 2770233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abandonment Finding

Text: [¶12] Whether a protective covenant has been abandoned as a result of acquiescence in violations of the covenant is a question of fact that depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Keller v. Branton, 667 P.2d 650, 654 (Wyo. 1983). To find an abandonment, the violations acquiesced in must be so great, or so fundamental or radical as to neutralize the benefits of the restriction to the point of defeating the purpose of the covenant. In other words, the violations must be so substantial as to support a finding that the usefulness of the covenant has been destroyed, or that the covenant has become valueless and onerous to the property owners. Hammons v. Table Mountain Ranches Owners Ass'n, 2003 WY 85, ¶ 14, 72 P.3d 1153, 1156 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Keller, 667 P.2d at 654.) [¶13] This Court has further explained that for a change in the neighborhood to justify a finding of abandonment, the change must be of a radical and permanent nature. Keller, 667 P.2d at 654 (quoting 7 Thompson on Real Property, § 3174 (Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc. (1962)). Where a violation is immaterial, minor, unoffensive, or remote from the land, no acquiescence will be presumed. Keller, 667 P.2d at 654 (citing 7 Thompson on Real Property, § 3173). Finally, the burden of proving a change in the neighborhood is on the party asserting the protective covenant's abandonment. Keller, 667 P.2d at 654 (citing Moore v. McDaniel, 362 N.E.2d 382 (Ill. App. 1977)). [¶14] In support of Defendants' allegation that the protective covenants governing the Milatzo Subdivision were abandoned, Defendant Jennifer Moore testified to numerous trailers, sheds, boats, unregistered vehicles, and other items present on various properties throughout the Milatzo Subdivision. On appeal, Defendants cite to additional testimony showing: -- the keeping of a yard shed by Plaintiffs Michael and Deborah Wolititch that is located eight feet from the side property line rather than the ten feet required by the covenants; -- Deborah Wolititch's babysitting of up to two to three children at a time, which children were unrelated to her and for which service she was compensated; -- the operation of an identity theft victim assistance business by Milatzo Subdivision resident Becky Burney and her hosting of presentations related to that business; 4 -- the keeping of a yard shed by Plaintiff Barbara Handley that is located less than the required ten feet from the property line; -- the keeping of two trailers on her property by Plaintiff Barbara Handley, which is in excess of the one trailer permitted by the covenants; -- the use by Plaintiff Michael Bunten of his home address in the Milatzo Subdivision as his business address; -- the keeping by Plaintiff Michael Bunten of a trailer and storage of landscaping equipment at his home; -- the occasional meeting with crew members at the home of Plaintiff Michael Bunten before leaving to go to a job site; -- the keeping by subdivision resident Charles Baca of a trailer advertising Pro Baca Windows and his keeping of four or five vehicles; -- the keeping of two trailers on her property by Plaintiff Pamela Jerke, which is in excess of the one trailer permitted by the covenants; and -- a failure to maintain the Building and Covenant Committee called for in the covenants. [¶15] In its ruling, the district court described the existing business activities of the Milatzo Subdivision residents as occasional or incidental and found that they were not the type of substantial, routine, and permanent business activities that would change the nature of the neighborhood. The court likewise rejected the other alleged violations as evidence that the nature of the neighborhood had been changed or that the purpose of the covenants had been defeated. Based on our review of the record, we find no clear error in the district court's conclusions. [¶16] With respect to the vehicles, trailers, campers, and boats that are present on subdivision property in alleged violation of the protective covenants, Defendants presented no evidence concerning how long the items had been present, whether they were permanent, temporary, or transitory, and how the presence of the items impacted the neighborhood. That is, Defendants failed in their burden of showing that these alleged violations caused a change in the neighborhood that was of a radical and permanent nature. See Keller, 667 P.2d at 654. [¶17] We find a similar failing in Defendants showing with respect to the presence of yard sheds that do not comply with the covenants' set back or aesthetic requirements. While Defendants presented evidence of the violations, they presented no evidence of the 5 impact that the handful of non-compliant yard sheds has had on the neighborhood and certainly no evidence that the violations are so great, or so fundamental or radical as to neutralize the benefits of the restriction to the point of defeating the purpose of the covenant. See Hammon, ¶ 14, 72 P.3d at 1156. [¶18] Defendants' evidence concerning other business activities in the Milatzo Subdivision also fell short of proving that the protective covenants had been abandoned. In particular, Defendants again failed to show how the subdivision was impacted by the cited business activities, such as the babysitting of two to three children, the use of a home address to receive business mail, the parking of a work vehicle and trailer carrying work equipment, the occasional meeting with a work crew at home, or the operation of an identity theft assistance business. The record is devoid of evidence showing that these activities radically and permanently changed the Milatzo Subdivision. [¶19] In fact, the evidence showed that the existing business uses did not cause the traffic impacts with which Plaintiffs were concerned. For example, Rebecca Burney, the resident who operates the identity theft assistance business, and who was one of Defendants' witnesses, described her business as follows: Q. And what does that business entail? A. It's direct sales to provide legal opportunities for people who need – who need attorneys or attorneys' advice and that, and we supply that. Q. And do you conduct business in your home? A. Yes. Well, most of it, I should say. Q. Okay. And explain, when you are conducting business, what are you doing? A. We have what's called a private business reception. It's – we invite friends and neighbors and acquaintances to come to the house and present the program to them. I serve, you know, serve some desserts or whatever, and we have questions. There is a presentation and an opportunity to sign up. [¶20] Rebecca Burney testified that she has reduced her time spent on her business to approximately six hours a month, that when she first began her business she gave one presentation per month at her home, that she has not given a presentation at her home in 6 two years, and that the last time any traffic could be attributed to her business activities would have been two years ago. On cross-examination, Ms. Burney further testified: Q. Now, you're aware that the Silly Bear Daycare is operating in your neighborhood; is that right? A. She's right across the street. Q. And you'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that the Silly Bear Daycare is different than your business, isn't it? A. Definitely. She's depending on it for income. Q. And it's open more hours a day? A. I would assume, yes. Q. Open for more hours a month, we'll say? A. Uh-huh. Q. And just so we're clear, have you seen an increase in traffic since the daycare has opened? A. I see cars that come and drop children off in the morning, and I see cars that come and pick them up in the evening, or afternoon. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yeah. [¶21] Plaintiff Michael Bunten testified that he uses his home address in the Milatzo Subdivision as the mailing address for his landscaping business. He further testified: Q. Do you run the business out of your house? A. No. That's impossible. Q. Why do you say that's impossible? A. I can't, like, put somebody's yard in and then take it to their house. 7 Q. So you leave your house. A. Yes. Q. Do your clients ever come to your house? A. No. Q. Do you sell anything out of your house? A. No. Q. Do you assemble or produce anything at your home? A. No. [¶22] On cross-examination, Michael Bunten testified: Q. Mr. Bunten, with your landscaping business, do you have a crew? A. Yes. Q. And does that crew come to your house in the morning? A. No. Actually, they came into my house to paint my house. Q. Okay. So your crew has never come to your house to get with you to go to the property that you're landscaping? A. I can't say never. They probably have a few times. Q. A few times? A. Uh-huh. And they walk. Q. Okay. A. Because they live two blocks from me. 8