AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiffs, residents of a subdivision, filed a lawsuit against their neighbor, Defendant, for storing a Wildwood travel trailer on her property, alleging it violated the subdivision's restrictive covenants. The covenants prohibited the storage of certain types of vehicles without prior approval and specified that such vehicles should be parked in a closed garage or adequately screened backyard. Defendant had previously parked a different, smaller trailer without issue but replaced it with the larger Wildwood trailer, which she attempted to screen with vegetation and offered to move to her backyard, an offer not accepted by Plaintiffs (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the storage of the Wildwood trailer violated the subdivision's restrictive covenants and that its manner of parking exacerbated its visual impact, unlike other vehicles in the subdivision or the Defendant's previous trailer (paras 4-5).
• Defendant: Contended that the covenants were ambiguous and that she had relied on the visible precedent of similar vehicles being stored in the subdivision without issue. Defendant also raised several equitable defenses, including changed conditions, acquiescence, waiver by estoppel, laches, and good faith (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the storage of the Wildwood travel trailer by Defendant violated the subdivision's restrictive covenants.
• Whether the district court erred in its interpretation of the covenants and in concluding that Defendant prevailed on her equitable defenses (paras 6, 10-26).

Disposition

• The district court's judgment in favor of the Defendant was affirmed, finding the covenants ambiguous and unenforceable and that Defendant prevailed on her equitable defenses (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Duffy, J. (Bogardus and Wray, JJ., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision on the basis of Defendant's affirmative defense of acquiescence, without needing to address the other issues raised in the appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's conclusions that Plaintiffs had knowledge of prior violations of the covenants, that these violations were not temporary or trivial, and that the magnitude of the current violation was not significantly different from prior ones. The court also clarified that acquiescence does not require an intent to waive rights, distinguishing it from waiver. Thus, the district court did not err in its findings or in concluding that Plaintiffs had acquiesced to similar violations in the past, rendering them unable to enforce the covenants against Defendant (paras 10-27).