Court Opinion

ID: 9363704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 15:03:38.730677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:33.560907
License: Public Domain

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

               MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
                        (Memorandum Web Opinion)

                  VILLAS OF SOUTHWIND TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION V. JOHNSTON

  NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
 AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

                 VILLAS OF SOUTHWIND TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION, A NEBRASKA
                           NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLEE,

                                                  V.

                                BERYLE LEE JOHNSTON, APPELLANT.

                             Filed January 17, 2023.    No. A-21-1028.

       Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: NATHAN B. COX, Judge. Affirmed.
       C.G. “Dooley” Jolly, of Adams & Sullivan, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
       Zachary W. Lutz-Priefert, of Gross, Welch, Marks & Clare, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.

       MOORE, BISHOP, and ARTERBURN, Judges.
       ARTERBURN, Judge.
                                         INTRODUCTION
       Beryle Lee Johnston constructed an enclosure around his patio and installed a temporary
wrought iron fence in the backyard of his townhome in Sarpy County, Nebraska. The Villas of
Southwind Townhome Association (the Association) filed suit against Johnston, alleging that
Johnston’s “fence” violated the restrictive covenants applicable to the premises because new
fencing was not permitted in the subdivision and because Johnston did not seek approval from the
Association prior to installation. The Association asked that Johnston be ordered to “immediately
remove the exterior fencing from his Property and to cease and desist from installing any exterior
changes . . . without first obtaining the approval of [the Association].” The district court ultimately
granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the Association, finding that Johnston “breached
the covenants by constructing a fence which is not permitted.” The court ordered Johnston to

                                                 -1-
remove the “offending fence” within 30 days from the date of the order. Johnston appeals here.
We affirm.
                                         BACKGROUND
       In 2014, Johnston purchased a townhome in the Villas of Southwind subdivision. Prior to
Johnston’s purchase of the property, the Association filed an “Amended Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements” (the Amended Declaration) for the subdivision with the
Sarpy County register of deeds. Included in the Amended Declaration is a requirement that
homeowners obtain preapproval for any exterior improvements built on their lots. That provision
provides, in relevant part:
       No residence, building, fence (other than fences constructed by the [Association]), wall,
       driveway, patio, patio enclosure, swimming pool, pool house, basketball backboards, dog
       house, tree house, antenna, satellite receiving station, dishes or “discs”, flag pole, solar
       heating or cooling device, tool shed, outdoor lighting, wind mill or other external
       improvement, above or below the ground . . . shall be constructed, erected, placed or
       permitted to remain on any Lot, nor shall any grading or excavation for any Improvement
       be commenced, except for Improvements which have been approved by [the Association]
       as follows:
                A. An owner desiring to erect an Improvement shall deliver two sets of construction
       plans, landscaping plan and plot plans to [the Association]. . . . Such plans shall include a
       description type, quality, color and use of materials proposed for the exterior of such
       Improvement.
                B. [The Association] shall review such plans in relation to the type and exterior of
       improvements constructed, or approved for construction, on neighboring Lots and in the
       surrounding area, and any general scheme or plans formulated by [the Association]. In this
       regard, [the Association] intends that the Lots shall constitute when developed a residential
       community with homes constructed of high quality materials. The decision to approve or
       refuse approval of a proposed Improvement shall be exercised by [the Association] to
       promote development of the Lots and to protect the values, character and residential quality
       of all Lots. If [the Association] determines that the harmony of external design and location
       in relation to the surrounding Improvements and topography of the proposed Improvement
       will not protect and enhance the integrity and character of all the Lots and neighboring Lots
       as a quality residential community, [the Association] may refuse approval of the proposed
       Improvement.

Elsewhere in the Amended Declaration, there is a specific provision prohibiting new fences: “No
new fence shall be permitted.”
         In August 2020, Johnston wished to erect two structures on his property. The first structure
is referred to by Johnston as a patio enclosure. Photographs of the completed patio enclosure depict
a 5-foot-tall gray wooden structure with diagonal slats which surrounds the entirety of Johnston’s
raised cement patio. The second structure is referred to by Johnston as a “pet pen” or a wrought
iron fence. This fence is, according to Johnston, temporary and easily removable.

                                                -2-
        In order to comply with the Amended Declaration when building the patio enclosure and
the wrought iron fence, Johnston telephoned the property manager for the subdivision on August
5, 2020. Johnston indicated to the property manager his desire to meet with the Board members
for the Association “to submit plans and specs for a patio enclosure [he] was wanting to erect.”
Johnston was informed that he could not immediately meet with the Board because future Board
meetings had been indefinitely postponed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Johnston
telephoned the property manager again on August 12, and a third time on August 19. He was not
able to speak with anyone about obtaining approval for the structures during either telephone call.
        In late August 2020, Johnston began work on the patio enclosure. The work continued
throughout September. On September 29, Johnston again telephoned the property manager for the
subdivision to inform him that he had started work on the project and that he wished to present his
plans to members of the Association’s Board. Johnston was, at that time, informed that the property
manager was no longer associated with the subdivision. Later, in October 2020, Johnston learned
that a new property manager, Jason Young, had been hired for the subdivision. He did not contact
Young, however, until March 2021, after the patio enclosure was complete and the wrought iron
fence had been placed. During the March 2021 telephone call, Johnston asked Young for assistance
on a matter unrelated to the patio enclosure or the wrought iron fence. Young informed Johnston
that he needed to remove his “fence” because he never requested permission to install the fence
from the Board.
        In response to Young’s warning that the fence needed to be removed from Johnston’s
property, Johnston sent to the Board “the plans and specs for [the] patio enclosure.” The Board did
not approve the plans. Young sent Johnston a “Notice” dated March 31, 2021, which states in part:
                1. An Architectural Change Request was submitted for 8152 South 94th Circle by
        the homeowner, Beryle Johnston, for review by the board on 29 March 2021.
                2. The board reviewed on 30 March 2021; Decision to deny the request at this time.
                3. It was discovered unrequested/approved (sic) work was done to Mr. Johnston’s
        patio.
                A) Additionally, the fence element of the patio is not authorized within the current
        governing documents
                4. The board requests that the project be removed at the homeowner’s expense.

        On April 4, 2021, the Association filed a complaint against Johnston in the Sarpy County
District Court. In the complaint, the Association alleged that “Johnston erected a fence without
approval and, thus . . . was in violation of the [Amended Declaration].” The Association also
alleged that, pursuant to the Amended Declaration, no new fence was permitted to be built on
Johnston’s property. The Association requested that the district court “issue a permanent
mandatory injunction directing [Johnston] to immediately remove the exterior fencing from his
Property and to cease and desist from installing any exterior changes which are not otherwise
permitted by the [Amended Declaration] without first obtaining the approval of [the Association].”
        In Johnston’s answer to the complaint, he admitted that he did not obtain the permission of
the Association prior to building the fence. However, Johnston alleged that the Association’s acts
or omissions made it impossible to obtain such permission. He further alleged that the
Association’s complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, that the

                                               -3-
relief sought by the Association is barred by the doctrine of laches and estoppel, and that the
Association has waived any right to raise Johnston’s alleged violations of the Amended
Declaration.
        The Association filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there exists no genuine
issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A hearing was held on
the Association’s motion in August 2021. At this hearing, both the Association and Johnston
presented evidence in conformity with the facts recited above.
        On December 2, 2021, the district court entered an order granting the Association’s motion
for summary judgment. In the motion, the district court found:
        [T]here is no material dispute as to what constitutes a fence or enclosure nor the fact that
        fences and enclosures are prohibited per the covenants of the [Association]. Further, there
        is no evidence of a permit being obtained or acquiescence by the board. [Johnston], in his
        own statement of undisputed facts, even refers to the area in question as being “fenced in”.
        Such fence or enclosure is prohibited per the covenants. While [Johnston] claims ambiguity
        as to the term ‘fence’, such a claim is not credible. [The exhibits attached to Johnston’s
        affidavit] clearly show[] a fenced/enclosed back patio and yard. Ultimately, the Court finds
        that no material facts are disputed. [Johnston] admits he erected a structure on his property,
        i.e., “fenced in”, he admits that he received no permission to do so, and he acknowledges
        that the covenants in their plain and ordinary meaning forbid such construction of a fence
        or other structure.

Given the district court’s findings, it concluded that summary judgment must be entered for the
Association in the form of a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The court ordered Johnston
to remove “the offending fence” from his property within 30 days.
       Johnston appeals from the district court’s order here.
                                   ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
        On appeal, Johnston generally assigns and argues that the district court erred in finding that
no genuine issues of material fact existed, and that the Association was entitled as a matter of law
to injunctive relief requiring him to remove the fencing he installed.
                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
        An appellate court will affirm a lower court’s granting of summary judgment if the
pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as
to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Farmington Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Wolf, 284 Neb. 280, 817
N.W.2d 758 (2012); Curtis Acres Assn. v. Hosman, 22 Neb. App. 652, 859 N.W.2d 365 (2015). In
reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable
to the party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all
reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Id.

                                                -4-
                                             ANALYSIS
         This case involves two structures that Johnston constructed in the backyard of his home
which is located within the Southwind Villas subdivision, the patio enclosure and the wrought iron
fence. In our review of Johnston’s assertion that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment and in ordering him to remove the fencing he installed, we must first determine whether
the district court’s order required Johnston to remove both the patio enclosure and the wrought
iron fence or whether it required him to only remove one of the structures. Upon our careful reading
of the court’s order and the parties’ pleadings, we conclude that the district court’s order required
Johnston to remove both the patio enclosure and the wrought iron fence. In reaching this
conclusion, we note that in its complaint, the Association specifically asked the district court to
require Johnston to “remove the exterior fencing from his property and to cease and desist from
installing any exterior changes which are not otherwise permitted by the Covenants without first
obtaining the approval of [the Association].” In its order, the district court grants the Association’s
specific request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court refers to “[s]uch fence or enclosure”
being prohibited by the covenants and that the exhibits showed the “fenced/enclosed back patio
and yard;” the court then orders Johnston to remove “the offending fence.” At oral argument before
this court, neither party appeared to dispute that the court’s order referred to both structures. As
such, we construe the court’s order as requiring Johnston to remove all exterior fencing (enclosed
back patio and yard) within his backyard. We now turn to address the propriety of the district
court’s order as to each structure and the law overlaying such analysis.
         Restrictive covenants are to be construed so as to give effect to the intentions of the parties
at the time they agreed to the covenants. Southwind Homeowners Assn. v. Burden, 283 Neb. 522,
810 N.W.2d 714 (2012). If the language is unambiguous, the covenant shall be enforced according
to its plain language, and the covenant shall not be subject to rules of interpretation or construction.
However, restrictive covenants are not favored in the law and, if ambiguous, should be construed
in a manner which allows the maximum unrestricted use of the property. Id.
         The Nebraska Supreme Court has previously addressed the specificity required by
covenants which control residents’ requests to build new construction or to make improvements
on their property in Normandy Square Assn. v. Ells, 213 Neb. 60, 327 N.W.2d 101 (1982). In that
case, a homeowner’s association filed suit against a resident after the resident built a fence on her
property without receiving the approval of the association. The association had apparently denied
the resident’s submitted building plans because the fence was not appropriately set back from the
street. Id. The relevant covenants at issue included a requirement that residents obtain approval of
any construction projects, but did not include any specific standards upon which that approval
would be based. Id. Instead, the covenants included the following broad standard for the
association’s approval of building plans: “‘[T]he harmony of external design and location in
relation to the surrounding structures and topography. . . .’” Id. at 63, 327 N.W.2d at 104. In
addition, the covenants indicated that their purpose was “‘enhancing and protecting the value,
desirability and attractiveness of said property. . . .’” Id. Ultimately, the trial court required the
homeowner to relocate the fence so as to comply with the policy of the association.
         On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Normandy Square
Assn. v. Ells, supra. The court held that restrictive covenants that permit a homeowners association

                                                 -5-
to approve or disapprove improvements based on a standard of whether such improvements
conform to the harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures are
not per se ambiguous; rather, such covenants are enforceable, provided that the authority is
exercised reasonably within the framework of the covenants’ stated purposes. Id.
        The facts of this case are somewhat different than the facts in Normandy Square Assn. v.
Ells, supra. In that case, the homeowner submitted a proposed building plan prior to erecting the
fence in question pursuant to the covenants, but the building plans were denied by the homeowners
association. The homeowner erected the fence despite not receiving approval. Here, Johnston
admits that he did not submit building plans for either the patio enclosure or the wrought iron fence
to the Association prior to completing the construction of these structures. As such, the question
at issue in this case is not whether the Association reasonably exercised its authority in denying a
building request, but whether the covenants contained within the Amended Declaration required
Johnston to receive preapproval from the Association prior to commencing constructing on the
structures.
Wrought Iron Fence.
        We first discuss the wrought iron fence which surrounds a large portion of Johnston’s back
yard. The evidence presented at the summary judgment hearing indicated that the wrought iron
fence is not necessarily a permanent structure, but rather is considered by Johnston as temporary
and easily removable fencing which is used to keep his dog confined to the back yard. Article I,
section 11 of the Amended Declaration explicitly and specifically prohibits any new fence. Such
section does not differentiate between temporary and permanent fencing, nor does it permit fencing
for specific uses, such as confining a pet. Rather, the section precludes the construction or
installation of any new fence. Given this language and given that it is clear that Johnston installed
the wrought iron fence after the Amended Declaration was enacted in 2013, it is clear that
Johnston’s fence is prohibited by article I, section 11 of the Amended Declaration.
        We note that there is some inconsistency within the Amended Declaration regarding the
installation of new fences. While article I, section 11 prohibits any new fence, article I, section 2,
prohibits the construction of new fences without prior approval from the Association. With regard
to the wrought iron fence in Johnston’s back yard, this inconsistency in the Amended Declaration
is inconsequential. Johnston never sought approval for the wrought iron fence either prior to or
after installing it in his backyard. As such, the fence is prohibited pursuant to either section of the
Amended Declaration.
        We conclude that pursuant to the language of the Amended Declaration, the district court
did not err in granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment as to the wrought iron
fence and requiring such fence to be removed.
Patio Enclosure.
        In the district court’s order, it found that the patio enclosure constructed by Johnston was
a fence and that, as a result, it was prohibited by the Amended Declaration. We do not disagree
with the district court’s finding that the patio enclosure constituted a fence. However, even if we
were to conclude that the patio enclosure was not a fence, we would still be compelled to find that

                                                 -6-
it was not permitted by the Amended Declaration because Johnston failed to obtain prior approval
from the Association for the construction.
        Article I, section 2 of the Amended Declaration specifically prohibits homeowners in the
Southwind Villas subdivision from constructing a patio enclosure without obtaining prior approval
from the Association. In order to obtain such approval, the homeowner must submit to the
Association two sets of building plans. The Association will then review such plans “in relation to
the type and exterior of improvements constructed, or approved for construction, on neighboring
Lots and in the surrounding area, and any general scheme or plans formulated by [the
Association].”
        Evidence presented at the summary judgment hearing revealed that Johnston attempted to
contact the Association prior to constructing the patio enclosure. Johnston explained in his
affidavit that the purpose of the contact was to seek permission to erect the patio enclosure.
However, upon speaking to the person who was the property manager of the subdivision at that
time, Johnston was not successful in setting up a time to meet with the Association. He admits that
because he was not able to contact the Association, he did not submit any building plans, nor did
he specifically request permission to build the patio enclosure.
        Despite his failure to obtain permission for the structure, Johnston began and completed
construction on the patio enclosure, knowing that the Amended Declaration required him to obtain
preapproval for such construction. Only after construction was completed and after the Association
asked him to remove the patio enclosure, did Johnston follow the directive of article I, section 2
of the Amended Declaration by submitting his building plans to the Association for review.
        On appeal, Johnston claims that the Association unreasonably withheld its approval of the
patio enclosure after he submitted the building plans. However, the Amended Declaration very
clearly states that homeowners must obtain approval for the construction of a patio enclosure prior
to commencing construction. Johnston did not do so and, as a result, the patio enclosure is not in
compliance with article I, section 2 of the Amended Declaration.
        Additionally, in its rejection of Johnston’s plans, the Association’s letter stated that “the
fence element of the patio is not authorized within the current governing documents,” which is
ambiguous in that it may be suggesting the patio enclosure violated the no fence rule or it may be
suggesting the structure simply was not in “harmony” with the rest of the neighboring lots as
required under section 2.B. of the covenants. The record does not indicate whether any effort was
made to determine whether the patio enclosure could be modified to bring it into “harmony” with
the Association’s standards or whether any patio enclosure whatsoever would constitute a
prohibited fence no matter its otherwise acceptable appearance. Regardless, it was within the
Association’s discretion to reject Johnston’s improvement. And if such rejection is deemed
unreasonable by 35 of the 44 members in the Association as averred by Johnston in his affidavit,
then there is an avenue for further addressing this matter available to him through the Association’s
meetings and procedures.
        We affirm the decision of the district court to grant the Association’s motion for summary
judgment as to the patio enclosure and its order requiring Johnston to remove the structure from
his property.

                                                -7-
                                       CONCLUSION
        We affirm the district court’s order granting the Association’s motion for summary
judgment and ordering Johnston to permanently remove from his property the exterior fencing he
installed.
                                                                                   AFFIRMED.

                                            -8-