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

• The case revolves around the enforcement of a restrictive covenant against liquor sales on a property governed by a 1948 deed. The Plaintiffs, property owners within or adjacent to the deed's boundaries, sued the Defendant, Lambert Enterprises, Inc., for planning to sell alcohol at a restaurant on the property, alleging this violated the deed's restrictions. Previously, two other restaurants on the property had violated the covenant by selling alcohol, but Plaintiffs had only objected to these violations without suing. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs had waived their right to enforce the covenant due to these actions and claimed that significant changes in the area's character since the deed's creation voided the restriction (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the Defendant's plan to sell alcohol at a restaurant violated the restrictive covenants of a 1948 deed. They maintained they had not waived their right to enforce the covenants despite not suing over previous violations, as they had objected to those violations in other ways (paras 1, 3-4).
• Defendant: Claimed that the Plaintiffs had waived their right to enforce the covenant against liquor sales by allowing previous violations without suing. Additionally, argued that the area had changed significantly since the deed, rendering the restriction void (paras 1, 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiffs waived their right to enforce the restrictive covenant against liquor sales by not suing over previous violations (para 6).
• Whether significant changes in the area since the creation of the deed void the restriction against selling alcohol on the property (para 15).

Disposition

• The court held that substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings that Plaintiffs attempted to enforce the covenants against previous violators, the area is primarily rural, and there was no waiver or significant changes in circumstances to void the deed restriction. The appeal by the Defendant was dismissed, and the district court's decision was affirmed (paras 1, 27).

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the Plaintiffs did not intend to waive the alcohol restrictions, as evidenced by their actions against previous violations, including objecting to liquor licenses and informing violators of the deed restrictions (paras 8-9, 11-12).
  It was determined that waiver of enforcement rights requires an intention to waive, which was not present in this case. The Plaintiffs' actions, such as re-recording the deed and objecting to liquor licenses, supported the finding of no intention to waive (para 11).
  The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the only way to enforce the restrictions was through a lawsuit, noting the deed allowed for any legal or equitable proceedings, not limited to filing a lawsuit (para 13).
  Regarding the claim of significant changes in the area, the court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings that the area remained primarily rural and residential, and the changes did not void the deed's restrictions (paras 15-20).
  The court also addressed and dismissed Defendant's arguments regarding estoppel and laches, noting the Defendant failed to show detrimental reliance or provide supporting authority for their claims (paras 24-25).