Opinion ID: 883960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lacking Quantifiable and Objective Standards

Text: The District Court further based its determination that Covenant II(Q) is void and unenforceable on its conclusion that [t]here is no quantifiable and objective standard of review for approval by the architectural committee ... [and that] [l]acking such standards, the actions of the architectural committee are subject to such arbitrary determination of sufficient degree as to deny substantive due process. The District Court's conclusion apparently is based on Town & Country Estates Ass'n v. Slater (1987), 227 Mont. 489, 740 P.2d 668. Town & Country Estates involved a prior-approval covenant which provided that: No residential ... structure ... shall be made ... upon the Properties ... until plans and specifications ... have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of exterior design ... by a Design Review Committee.... Town & Country Estates, 740 P.2d at 669-70. The owners of a lot presented plans for a proposed house with a shake roof, wood siding and 2,600 square feet of living space. Town & Country Estates, 740 P.2d at 670. The Design Review Committee rejected the plans, stating that the home was not in harmony of external design as required by the covenant and that `the neighborhood consists of $200,000 plus homes, and this is the kind of conformity that you should look to.' Town & Country Estates, 740 P.2d at 670. The owners began construction without approval and the subdivision homeowners' association sued. Town & Country Estates, 740 P.2d at 670. We recognized that, although prior-approval covenants properly may be based on aesthetic considerations, every house in the subdivision at issue had a unique external design, in a cacophony of styles[;] the covenant did not contain any design standard and the Design Review Committee was unable to state one. Town & Country Estates, 740 P.2d at 671. Moreover, the record reflected that the submitted plans met the only common design characteristics extant in the subdivision, which related to minimum size and type of roof. We concluded that where a prior-approval covenant fails to define a standard of approval for the entity charged with review and approval of plans, it is too vague to be enforceable. Town & Country Estates, 740 P.2d at 671. Since the subdivision at issue had a broad architectural spectrum, and the owners' proposal fell within that spectrum, we held that the covenant was vague to a degree which denied the owners substantive due process. Town & Country Estates, 740 P.2d at 671. Town & Country Estates involved a prior-approval covenant which was vague due to a lack of design standards under which the required review and approval of plans would be conducted. In the present case, Covenant II(Q) contains a prohibition against the installation of television satellite receiving dishes by unit owners. The prohibition totally precludes such installation and, as a result, no plans or applications are subject to review by the architectural committee. Thus, the quantifiable and objective standards for review which were necessary in Town & Country Estates have no applicability here. We hold, therefore, that the District Court erred in concluding that the absence of quantifiable and objective standards of review renders Covenant II(Q) unenforceable.