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, who own separate tracts of land in an unincorporated subdivision in Lincoln County, New Mexico, sought to prevent Defendants from constructing a concrete batch plant on another tract within the same subdivision. Plaintiffs argued that restrictive covenants in the deed history prohibited such construction, claiming it would be a nuisance to adjoining landowners (paras 1 and 4).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 31, 2023: Denied Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction against Defendants, concluding that Plaintiffs had not established a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits and that the threatened injury did not outweigh the damage an injunction would cause Defendants (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the district court erred in concluding that they had not established a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits and that the restrictive covenants likely do not burden Defendants’ land. They contended that the proposed concrete batch plant would constitute a nuisance and that they would suffer irreparable injury without an injunction (paras 1 and 10).
- Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs had not established a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
- Whether the district court erred in concluding that the restrictive covenants likely do not burden Defendants’ land.
- Whether the district court erred in determining that a preliminary injunction was not warranted (paras 1 and 10).
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the preliminary injunction (para 11).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Duffy and Wray JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's conclusion that the restrictive covenants were likely terminated by the doctrine of merger when all tracts were owned by a single legal entity. The court found no error in the district court's application of the merger doctrine and determined that the covenants were likely extinguished. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's findings regarding the noise levels and potential nuisance of the proposed concrete batch plant. The court concluded that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated any error in the district court's decision that would warrant reversal (paras 5-10).