Belager-Price v. Lingle
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02102-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Protective covenants - Future intent Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY; Dismissal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2008 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Thomas L. Zebert Disposition: DISMISSED HOMEOWNERS’ SUIT TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Case Number: 2008-0412 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MARSHALL E. BELAGER-PRICE, BRENDA C.
BELAGER-PRICE, BRIAN E. PRICE, RETHA A.
PRICE, RICHARD TUCKER, CAROLYN
TUCKER, AARON D. PUCKETT, JR., LESLIE
PUCKETT AND MARY ANNE NARRON |
STEVEN CRAIG PANTER, RONALD EARL STUTZMAN, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | RICHARD LINGLE AND NAOMI T. LINGLE | RONALD HENRY PIERCE | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Protective covenants - Future intent |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marshall Belager-Price, Brenda Belager-Price, Brian Price, Retha Price, Richard Tucker, Carloyn Tucker, Aaron Puckett, Jr., Leslie Puckett, and Mary Anne Narron instituted an action in chancery court. The court denied their petition to enforce the protective covenants of Kristen Hills Subdivision in Madison County against Richard Lingle and Naomi Lingle. The Homeowners also sought a permanent injunction against the Lingles’ construction and use of a horse barn on the Lingles’ lot in the Kristen Hills. The Lingles filed a counterclaim asserting that the Homeowners were interfering with their right to quiet enjoyment of their property, and in response to the Homeowners’ suit, the Lingles argued that they intended to build a single-family residence on the property when their economic situation allowed them to move forward with the construction. The chancellor found that the protective covenants did not preclude the Lingles from construction and use of the horse barn. The chancellor also found that the Lingles intended to construct a single-family residence on the land at some future, but unknown, date. The Homeowners appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Protective covenants The Homeowners argue that the Lingles’ barn cannot be an appurtenance in compliance with the protective covenants in the absence of a single-family residence. The relevant language of the protective covenant at issue states: “The subject property can only be used to build and construct only one single[-]family residence and appurtenances thereto . . . .” A layman familiar only with the basics of the English language would understand the covenant to restrict the use of the Lingles’ lot to a single-family residence and appurtenances to that residence. The word “thereto” is defined as: “To that, this, or it” or “In addition to that; furthermore.” Given this definition, it is clear that the average person would construe the covenant at issue as follows: “The subject property can only be used to build and construct only one single[-]family residence and appurtenances [to that residence].” The language clearly notified the Lingles, or any other purchaser of property in Kristen Hills, that the lot is to be used for residential purposes, not merely for some other purpose. In order for the Lingles to be in compliance with the covenants, any structures must be related to a residence. In essence, the reading that the Lingles propose supports the idea that the lot could be used to accommodate their own personal club, equestrian center, or storage facility without ever having to use it as a residence. Issue 2: Future intent The Lingles purchased the property on June 14, 2007, and the Homeowners filed their petition to enforce the covenant on April 29, 2008, less than eleven months later. The Homeowners pursued this suit without affording the Lingles a reasonable opportunity to build a home. The record shows that the chancellor had substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence before him in which he could determine that the Lingles’ intentions were to build a home on the property. In these precarious financial times, the chancellor did not err in declining to impose a time limit in which the Lingles must complete their home and any other improvements they may add to the property, nor did he err in denying an injunction to prohibit them from using the property for their horses. As noted in the chancellor’s ruling, other property owners of the subdivision have barns and/or detached outbuildings similar to the barn the Lingles are constructing. Also, the record reflects that other property owners have horses on their property. A fair interpretation of the agreement between the parties indicate that the lots of Kristen Hills are to be for people to reside there, not just visit. However, because the covenant is ambiguous as to when the physical residence must be built in temporal relation to any appurtenances built thereto, the residence must be built within an objectively reasonable time period after commencing construction of any appurtenances on the subject property in order to satisfy the requirements of the covenant. Should an inordinate, and objectively unreasonable, amount of time lapse with no effort by the Lingles to move forward with the construction and completion of a home, the Homeowners may bring this issue to the attention of the courts once again. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
