04072014111224
TRANSCRIPT
['
},/!ARKA" esAeARr:p}{
E3gSTRECT' CG[JF.{T .N€JB GE trtr.q} T:tr1}4
April4,2014
.Iohn P.IdaYs, Esq-
cAs$i,m; HAYS &FREIDMIAN, F'A'
530-E Hgrkle Road
Sauta Fc" F[cw Mexico S7505
Ronald. Van Amberg, EsE"
vAH AMBtrRfi? XIOGERB' YEPA'
ABEN'A & GOMEZ, LLP
F.O. Eox 14a7
Sant*Fe, New Mexiso 87504'1477
Re: Eldorado Comnruniry Improvenrent Assoeiation, Ine' vs' Susan Eillings' et al' Case
Nunrber D-0101-CV.20 n-AnSn in {he First Judicial Distu'iet Court in ihc State of New
Mexico,
Dear Corrlrsel,
This letter oonteins my deeisicn on drc Sutnmaty Judgmcnt Motians frled by both parties
in this case, I artivJatmy decision to grant the Ftainii{frl,Motion f'ar $umff'afy
.lr6gnlent otrly after "o*pLr1,'g
a th""orTgh review and delil-reration of the l+w and the
partie+' rnoti.ons" **liUit*, affraavits #"l"gul atgumert'. I have detailedthe feasons'fof
my decirion betow. i sincerely appreciate f,avine the time to thorcughly csnsidet tlLe
issucs Presented-
,SUMMARY OF' NSSIJESI,.
1 . Tire Parties have ea-eh takeil riifferent intelpretations of the Eldorado at $anta Fa
Subdivigion.,s reshietive eovenants. T-he restrictive cOvstlant in issue provides that *'No
uri*"f*rUira*"rp*olt'ry'sl:allbek-eptorrnaintairearloually1*t'exuuptrecr"rgttir'udl:ousehold Pets' '."
2. Eoth Far'ries:hi.ave subminedMotions for $urnrnary Judgment to-the Court,arguing
Ot" if-- r"*-rf-f faets lili&is ease are unelispute4 and tle Cc'rt shnuld' enter a decisinn se
a malter of lavr.
K. StephenRoYee, Esq"
ARJ,AND & A"SSOCIATES, LLC
201 Third gt. NW, Ste. 505
;\lbuqu-erque, t.TM S71 02
COVEI\IAI{TS"
lonmuniry Imptovement Associatron ('"ECLA ) is aNevr h{exioc'
nonpro{ir coryoffi#;;;J?La *rra d"r.s;;;*- "r4*t1* laws of the $tate of New
Mexiso, and is t'r-;;;""*";;;' **r*i"tflffit tf'- gi*-tado at Santa Fe eubdivision
lqcateql in Santa f- il"*ry' New Mexieo (the '"Subdivision'")'
4. As a non-profit eorporation' the ECIA is glY1-ttlits Eoard of Direstorc- The
EciA is not a rounicipali.ty or other governrnental or quasi-governrirental entiiy'
S.TheECIAiechatgcdwi.thcrrforeingtheAmlnde{arrdRestatedFr'otectiveCovenantsanrl Buildine n*firi;i; r* etao*do"ut s*tu Fe' wlrioh are resorded in the rEeords of
Sanra p'u llqr.rfrty, N;;il;o ("the C.-"."*itf fot the bene'fit and proteetion of all
Eldorado residents'
6.TlreoriginaldeveloperofEldoradoatSairtaFein,l.gTladoptedandreeordcdproteetive Coo*o#* *? g*fAhg n**tr1*tioos for Eldorado at Santa Fe' as a general
;;#;,; pl* f;iJ*eropme:nt of the subdivisiott"
7, T.hc covenants were adopted by avote of the majonty of the (Jwners of the lots in
the Subdivision in 1995'
B.TheAmendedandRestatedPrcteetiveCovefianlsan.dBuildingRestrictionsforthe$ubdi.wisi-on Provide :
Sgetionll.HouselroldPets.Noanimals.birdsorpo4qslrallbekeptormedntainedonariy lot, except'# gti;; rtt.*r*ra e# tl* *'"y b--k-pt thereon in reasonable
nunrbem as pds for the pleasure unlt rile of the oecupants but not for any commercial use
or purpose. r, i*iil'uiJi*' io p*ooit 4!;ii;*'- 1{g:"* Eldorado' At all times' dogs
nrust be kept, resirainJ *A ,lrrt otled 6y thoit qwners in the illanner deseribed in the
$anta Fe Caunqy Aniffial Confiol Ordinanoe'
g,Tlrefusl,ssnluncerrfthiscoveuanthasbeenpartrrfrhecovef,alrtssinoelgTZ.
l0.Thedefendantsaroeachtegidentialprope{oY:**inthcEld.oradosubdivisionatSanta Fe located irt ,$anta Fe, New nn--ifo" nu*n of these resielential properties is strtrject
to the flovenant'q
1i. The Def.endaurts eaeh own ehickens tltat are houscd and eared for on their respective
properties. It i*';;;irp;a tH* *ti'ti.-"-'- ;;OouttW*" There are no allegations that the
ii*i*tta*ts ale com.rflerpiatly usmg their ehiekens'
12. In tlie conrplaint, th.e Flalntiffraises no a'lleged covenant violations' suoh as
nuisanees, orrvilut iL* DetbnclanB trraintain chiehens anel t}iar undEr the eoveDantg" no
chickens ,*n* *u,i:rt"io*d vrithin the tsidor.ado $ubdivision''
13. .Ihe Defendants admitthat trrry ea$i1ct rrainLuir rsosteffi trecause tb,er' arc a nuisanee
because of theit noise'
THE FARTIES' INTERPETATION $ OF TH"E COVEH-'4NT'
L4.ttisundisputedtlratthedefendarr,LshavetakenxhepositlonthaJa|Igltlmals'birdsnnd
il-,;,;;;**rtyitin";n*;;y*l;5:Ht[';"*:lltli'*:fl-ffi1?ceunderreuognizcs suclr atrJ
tlre sovenant Provisions)'
The Defendants, Interrogatory Answers eontain the follow'urg fesponse:
*. A household is a groun af persons,.iii"* t.,i--aer in a *eJict*-'ntial seftiog' I-Inder
the eovenants, ,**o'g-ri*Ld ]rouseholp 9u*u ,,-* thouu p*1**on*zed by t1e household'
rt is the rro**uor+ firiiJ;rtf; *h* "#
;-;- ** J"O, in tt'Jcase of Defendauts' thev
'#;;";p"r*a trt*it ehiekens as pet$'"
l5.Consequently,itisundispu':qqT*nuDefendants'lyyetakentlropositionttratchickerrs are a[oweJ as househola rr*
"n"**ilt-- tr# *'itnl* u'* t**ognized by theit
lrr-r r-rsehol d$'+s Pets'
16.IligundisputeelthatthePinintiff*(ECIA)intcrprotationisthatelriekEnsaf,enot.,reecgnizcd h".*.Toil;-*r" *rtrr'- d;;i"g of tfie Eldsfadtr" $ covenants'
|7,Specifrcal$theFlaintiffeontendsthat(a)theoovenantsrurarnbigul}slJ.excludeehickens '" '**J'tl*J
t'o*tl'oq q{; ;J r'uj even -if tlte oovenant provi'ron rE
atnlriguous, rrr- riliiCi-,r *"u-.1;1r""**'tlish the ***ittg of the disputed temrs
as ehickens are nott*t'ogui"*d housahold pets'
lB.Consequent$,itisurrdisputedtharttreFlaintiffhastakenlhepositiontlratclriekensarenotaltowed#i'u**noro-p*eu*t;'il*iin*'trr*.nr'oo'uooeommunitynorbroad*rft -W recognir'o ehiokens as household' Ber*'
A.PFLICABLE LAW.
19. The courL i.s first required to detennine iflthe covenant language is ambiguons'
20. Just beeause two parties interpret the }anguage or a covenant ditTerently does *ot
meal] the eovenanr is ambiguous. i;;;fiil **J u::: eonsider whethetboth
i-nteqptetatlo** #t-*-na6le in the centext of the ease'
2l.Amhigurffegj.stswheuawordorphtaseissuseeptibletotwoorlnolemcanings.whether ambiguiry exisrs i* u quur#J;;l;;r t*-au*iaiog wheths a covenan"t is
arnbigucus **:to*i. at the doerrm;;;; a whqle' S"U"tinii' Roybal Z't '-NMCA-086"
22.Con'rextualurxdeGtandiflgi*.-*:::,*-'ytoconctnrtrrestrietivesftvsSant$inamarurerecnsistent wltlrtire-intent uo-:' **p*'*titfl'Jo'ri'ilu-*-" e.#t*evidenoe is adffiissible
ro exptai* ,, *l*iff, but nnt to v1:q. *, ;*d-di-i * t?181* eovera*t's terfll*q' Agus
Fria save the CIpen $tr "**
Assoeiarion;. d,*ilAot t+qh[ca-054' 149 NivI 812'
23. In dctenni*ing wlretJrer a term or expression to whieh the paftfenfrave agre*el in
unelear', a goilrt may hear cvidenee of the eireuntstAneeg Sufl'ounding the nAAHlng Oi thc
eontraet a:rd of any relevent u5flgc of ft'ade, eourse of dealing and eO*rse Of'peff'Ofmanee-
Agua Frta'
?4, I{e*tnetive covrilants must bs Eensidcr*d rea-:orlably, though sfictlyaud an illogical,unnatural, or strained eonsfruetion must be avoided. We will not read rcstrietions on theuse afld enjoyment of the land irrto the cavenant by implication arrd rve rnust give wor&rin the resfristive eovenant their ordinary and intended rn*animg. ,kr eonstrruing aBrotebtive covefifffit*.a court is to gxve effeet to flre intention of the parties as showf,. by U:elamguage of the whole inshl$nent, {:onsidered with flre cir.cumstance$ $wrCIurding therransaotion, and the
"_bjl-l-qlta! Farfies in making the restrietions. Agua Frta citfuigMontova v Barreras, sr NM 749 (rgz}t, Hiil v cilrty-ornanni+n -f ftdrrk;;; iggo_I'IM$C-008 anrl Hines cory. v. city of nb*quurqou. si lln r 3r 1 (r g$0)^
25' The supreme court has hekl that ambiguous or unclear Language in a res[rictive';ov*fiaill rrrusl be resulvcd "irr favc.]r'f rhc rr*- *tii,ryrrr*rir of rtr* pruperly arrcl agai'strestrictions'' At t{e sarne titne the $upreme court has instruetsd that the nrle of stricteonetruetion muet be eubordinate to the.intefltio*.f *h$;ies r{s refla*ted by thelanguage of the whox,e instlunent" the cireurirstances s#ounding the t'ansaetionu and thepurposes eniraating the restrietions. Agua Fria.
26' The general ruji ttrlt ambiguities ooneerning resh'ietive covenants should beresolved iru favar ofthe free enjiinrnent and ug;;;t *ud*ii*n*, but thjs rule cannot i:e
fJ,*-FJidErbat the obvious purpo$* of the rJstu'isrions, rh-;#ffi;ffi-E soveirr.
27' In inteqpreiing expressly treated seryitudcs, the expressed iutenrion of the partiee is3f
primarv imlortanec. Thelr intendi-il#il;;Tis; of alt of the eircumsranees.Reststement (Thlird) of Froperty
2&' rn order to detemiue the meating of ambiguor+s tenns, the fhet fiader ma5, eonsiderextnnsie evid*nee ofthe language and-condust of thE parties a:rd eireu:nstarieessurroundirtg the pgreement, as well as ornl e"ia*n** oi*rr* e"oi*s, intent. Mark vv, Mellekas, I gg3-I{MSe-001.
2g' If the court finds ambiguify, th* ambiguiry must be recolved as afl issue of ultirnatefaet. E/v ru+r
30' eontextual u:rderstanding is neecssary to eonskrc re.sft"ietive eovcnants in a ma;rner
E0n.si.stenlvlitlrtheinientandexpeetationoftlrepartres.Exhhsit]evidelr.eeisadflisgiblctoexBlainorclariff.butnltjovafyof-""o-,1r,''aregtrietiveaovefi&nf$tenng.Ll.RlGd"ttv quoted' in Agua Fria'
ia court eonph'rded thar eourts
3 t. Ferrsuant to C'R' furthony and its progeny' the Agua Fr
are not obligated -q -ttt#-'* ::*;fi#*tti*
indeten'ninturg whctlrer the
ranguage of a restncH"e corenast i, #"ilH;;";;ft;i*I * t"-t*-r dispure tegarding
the restrietivc coven;nf s meaning^ AguaFria'
32-TlroCourtnotest]reAguaFriaCoufididnote_seludetlre,,freeuse..n.i.[eof*o'structio,rrrot i;ioui*,r fiat st.l"t o*r;*t;i;;t is rrut abur-rluLr ar^l the ucrurt s'uulll rrol
appry it strictry ,, ffi; ;;;rd d*f.#il- i";-rrt -r oboionsporpose of the restiiction-c'
OzuGINAL COVET\IANTS 'AND FII$TORY
33.Theoriginalcovenantswereimplementedlg72bylhoDeveloperwiththestatedpurpo$* of perpetuating, o*rl r**n*Oj* uoJ?*u*top*A portions' the rich qualities
narticutar ro ure pastorii enviro*o*nt'ioi td;;;;'fti"f ^'i;d;quite proper* witi:in
tho Eldorado ,*"il-"il; -i"r-O *ith $;;;;;*t* 'f''"t
Eldotado at $attaFe' In'c'
*oileoufager ronnJr*Jv*{looioio*il;;;;;*itttio the environment'"
34. Tlre urigirral r;t-lvtjllunt$, plain lrrnguage intlicate ,}1*h,o were restrictive in rrature
ancl intended a eontrolled *ooi,"**tltll?gt uo'uao nt Sutrt" fu' Inc' fbt the 'm*ual
benefrt nnd anjoyrncnt of putolraso,,
-
of Io,* ' . ' dcsircs to plaee thcreon cer*aiu proteefive
covenants, buildffi restrictions *d -;ili;;ns us ts the "L and occupaney thereof'"
35.The$utdivisionwasdesignedinthelg70sbyt}:eoriginalduu*Igry'asamiddleand *pper-*iddl;;l;*, ir*ia#irf **UAi"iti"o' Siutti"g in the late 1970s the
subdivisioo **-*utJ**J uv trr* *-rd;ild-* of homcs in the developmenr as a pa*qs.e
I"r.*l"*n "oitt' Conkling Affrdavit'
. .J_ _ r^.- lc
36.Ae.Eldoraclodeveloped.ateputationasasolafeommuniryinthelatelg70sand1gg0s it was ,r", m* in*irioo orrorulr, conr'rijlg ton*ug*t of the Etdorado comnrunity
tmprovement ffi;#;;;ro*, tsdfr,;';T!-f ;'rntit""t*ral Comr:nittee' nrernber of
the Eoard of Di-rectors and builder- "ilo*' 300 homes ot ilA*udo between 1978 zurd
tgg5) nor did h_;;; it io n* trrr-intention of any oth*.r h*m.builder aerive ritrere rhet
Eltlarsclo would be +r would- fo**o"i** '*J "g'inottuJ *omrnumty irr whieh domestic
livestock oo"f;Gl Csnklinc AtTidavit"
37'DuringMr'Conklirrg'sseventeenyearinvolvenrenfwith'Eldorado'andparticularlyd*ring trls time ;;1" Ed-,Aer*rrii**#ur Cornmittee, it *u' his understanding and
belief tlat tlre intcrpretarion in *h*'ilffi;"ib/ *-t tu-t' cierm "reeognized household
pets,, in ttn* *o**u'ot* allowed *d;;;-e* l1*3,u* dog* and cats that wete k"ept fur or
about trr*,'ujl"*i' *t "rtou*ttokl'' Conkling AfEdavil
TIIE AME}{DEE COVENA}ITS.
38' The nrajority of the vcting owneJl passed th,e Ameildcd. Covenalts in 1995 adopting
Seetion 11. Ttre elear purptlse of ,qeetio";ii ' ffoot-ttotd Fets' is to exel*de all animals"
birds or poultry exeepltlrose perntitted utJ*t Ut* axoeptioir that is now i:n dispute'
39. Resfuiotive covenants sonstitute a eotthaot betvreen the ilhdivision's properiy
owlers as a whole und the individual lot owners. fuagon v' $xswn 2003 NMCA 126'
40. Historiea.lly reetrietive eovenants have beert used to assure unr'fon:ri$ of
daveloprnent "nd *ns* of a resi.dential atea to giva tho o"vner$ of lots within sueh s'xr s-$ea
some degree of envirCI-nmental stability' Moirtoyav Barreras 8l NM 749 (L970)'
4J.; Under tlre.Amended Covenants the ECIA Bc'ard of Direetor's i5 " ---elflPowereel to
adopt and enf,Jrceu}|n-; iule$, r*g.tlution* anel guiclelines.forthe interpretation,
implernenratioo *J *J";r# "i*tir n-rt-teiDcelaration and tlre exeroise af the
Eoatd.s powens *a +Gio hereunder, *rti*rt shatl be consistentwirh this Restated
Declarelioil."
I IISTOR-ICAL TIRACTICE
42- TheEcrA has histofically enf'otced the covenantc t{} evclurle chickene- Each
onforcentent case was reso]'ved witlr tlre mmoval of tJre chipketrs, Tlre enforcement
aBtions a.gainst the Dsferdants ,.* B*r* oi that on-going entbrcennent aciion' Durine his
renure since 1996 as Facilitie, fuf*ug*t ;; G"*tif f"f*"ueer' Williarn Do'ohue is not
awafe of any eomplaints or violatian- t***l"g chiekens whieh did not result in
*nioi*u**nt action. Donohue Affrdavit'
43.TheECIRenforeemenracrion$haveincl.udedexcluslon.tlfcltjckens,vafiances,and.astayofenforeementaetiviticstoavoidinfluencingacovenantgelection.
M. At l€agt one eovenant enfotcemenl ('fficff h'as in'tlicatecl that he did not enforee
covef:afl.ts unleee i#* ,u*r* "o*pl*io;. ni.*y Affrdalr At len-et one ECIA dit+ctot
indicated informally his view trr*t qw *ti*af smaller than a largc dog sould be
aceeptabte- Siegat and Minor Affrdavits
45. An ECIA Board Mecting in 1999 wa"$ iepofied-by shelia cowine with lrcr notes
in,Jieating tt * ir..** oii"'lrousJhold pu*" *u' Uiing disaussed then' Her artiele indieates
th# she understood tlrat''*Beeaur- t;i"f;t; pout"lUniti*g inherent in the ter'rn 'hOusehold
pets, aeeeptabitity of spceitrc puu *ii"pffity aep*na upou whethet or not the
neighbors ,rn ptiin:,to*irrg effid;;ii. Some t o**o#*rs in the Sirbdivision have harl
,;hir:heffi fc;r i0 u""u'* y**i' Weste'r AflidaviL'
46-AeeordirrgtoJorrDeligans,nnECIAbo*d*:T.bjr,bcttvecnNlaythtnrughthecndof oetober 20r2,the EcrA was c?nceffied the controversy rlue to the fract that the pets
covenant rneaningwac not crear- il;;;;i* tt,n,,g'rt it t-ss cleai- nn one side anrl snme
pepFlethougfuttheoppasite.Tlleloardwasgar.efulnot-rltnltcaBositlcn..EeligansAffifuvit. rrr* c"#.*"t*u rrr**nou ti** il*- ineluded the covenants eleciion'
47'TheEC]A,shistoficalirlt*rprretationofthcteffn".r.ecoe&ized}rouselroldpets'.inthe$ubdivision has been thar poulw{r"*u'*'l*;;i-ffi l*;)'.*-
;-i reeognizer$ household
uets and aTe nor p-*io-4]*A-, G C-"-.["i-' Ft$ohue Aff,rdavit' T6ere has hlcen iro
ividense presented lhat EC'A has ever ;;-*i"*1 ehiekens as househo** pets"
4s.Consequently*[eECTA,$hi$toliEalirrtcqpretioniseonsisteEitwiththeirqutlen[position that ctriekJn=c
"**r* *il*t*nded urit'in the eovenant? s ffieening'
BACKYARD FOULTRV NE'W P}IENOMENON
49' Chigkenhens are categotizeel for vett:rinary.and rc1.e.:nnrental regulatory pulposes a3
"livestoek xs6 poultry''and. arefyBic+Ily refen'ed to ry agricultural *i*ulu" Foulny hap
nor hisrofieally becn Lonsidsfed ,,h*nu:ilfi;;#i*
"l-*nat household pets sr'rch as
dogs and *utu, **ilir*eutut*A r" *gti*?ilXianimals- FaHlonia Affrdavit.
50.Tha, antaFeCoun$'New&{exicaAnfuualtcnffolordinarree,inelrrdingboththel991{-Jtdinancethatiscurrenflyi--rr--.,andtlaeg*e**oZ4[3arr:endmentsbothdefine ehiekeus and other pouttry *;;;til iivestock'
51.^Thepractieeofrnaintainingbae}ryardp*qryhlslre,eomeasignifi.eanlphcnonrsnonorily sineci tlr* *ii-boo's, *nd,ivhen;;##, rras
!.++1 aeoompli+hed by amond:nente to
municipal or oounty zoning ordinaneJs lo offo* pouttq.to be kepr in areas where fa'm
snimnls,i,og'i*';;';ild"'*"thu#--pt"rt1t''r*d-'thesernningordinaneesmayrequire a speeiat pennit and q,nnuuri#;itti- *tll:_n*.b*r utld $pe o'f poultry that
ean be kept, ar:cl otherwise regulate thluse. These ryy:* fondrueuts have not sirnply
reclassifled baekyard poulty -1 n-*ri*r*il ."rro-oser,ora iets*. Fabilonia Affidavit'
51'.$cientifi.csufir+Yilcen,df,lctedbfDr.Fabiloni.a,oftheownef$crfbackyadpouitfyhaveglrownthatange"/o*uj*,jry"1"ili'*-*""'J't{echickelr.$a$asslJ{eeoff(tod'mear or eggs foi nl'o*** while "J;';;il"
*,ir;Eriy.oIrh; owners rnaintain'utrc ahiekens
es pets, conipi-t-, -il;tnUy anim"rs FabiloniaAffidavit
33.Cgneequently,tlrcevidenceildicatesthateldckerrseouldnothavebeenint+rr.dedwithin 6ru ***oiog of "teeogfli't-d?;;;h.1d n*t* 4t1t*
ti** gt* L972 Covenents and
the lgg' Ainended Covenanrs **-if,}*;*fu. .!$ekens trave nothistorieatly been
eonsidered, ,u t oou*uord pets *d,hJffiilrt*n -r-rrr-r-* o*uru clo n*t ecnsirtrer their
ehiskens as Petn'
THE C$VEI'I AFIT ELECTION "
54.[nZ0l3,theHt]lAeorrducted.anelection.toamendi$ecovenantsfotavaricryoffea'ons ineludingto '"elariff wtretner o' no*5o**o*t'*'-U can have ehieketrs on drEir
1T:-3 -dtober t' 201 2' b1-T::-* 55 '4vp to +:'6%i'h:'ho*uo*er inenrbers of
rfsif; f t#-tJi,*Iffi,ffi ':tr-#$$ffi111*;il;;r".Ilvinetudedchickens
S6.Conscqu.ently,theevidenee.{r{catesthattheTEo:",,g."fvotinghanreowtrefsattlresubdivisio" *" .-ri-i*"--*
-ou-u#L- tl*ctrrzed horiserrolds pets'
ANALYSI$ OF THE P'ARTIE''$, INTERFRETATTTJN$'
57 . carrying tlre defendanrs' interpretetiou to a losic*Xil-*-Llli#ff-TH#xtJht
Li,d,"odp"dt'.XliitE;t"*q..ff *1ffi#,*ili;ilHil*-)insid'eoioutsicle
il*[i*.,"**lty;,*SHlt':':H;?'-"";;theotherovners
rhisirrterpretatlonwoutdme$t|atindividualtryT"lffi :l"Hi:fi H-'J'il:ltf;*
disoretion to tt*'J *ij"i oi *i*ur' uird or iroultry tn a
Subdivision'
58.Trreplaintiffsclaimthat:?hiek:nsarenorhourytr"lleetsbrylls*Eg.H"thenraiontyof Erdorado n" #1"* -* qa oy
11-, *", -uv ao n31 r"yo [i# "ni*r'** :::u
*'*o*o
uets, they **,*',,o, i'i-"41q I T;ni#-0"1u't*t -:lff"tn*?#;H51'Y-ffJ. ' 'iravc not bc.* *ri"*"Jin El Dorado bv the E*IA ***;;;ffii
incrud* ehiekens within
orirners uv *ioiv;y ilfucated that tlre c$vena
;; ;;;'i' g ol "ho''sehol d Pets" -
RELEV ANT I"EG,{I' FRECENENT NON'Ffi'TDING)
59.WhilenotbindingauthoriV,tlresuperio'.9o",o]nthe$tateofPennsylvaniaaddressing arestristivs*.r*rr*t, io
" '#* 'i*il* tl tr'i*
"tutt*t and deteilnined that
ebiekess *oJn;i: rnoouetrotdpetfr;"r **- **:j:-:l1"Jl.d'*1'll',?::$ll"Jl*'-tl,e restrictiv;il-;il;' go*k Hitl Falls v' Clifford I
2002).
*RE CO GNIZED I{OUSEI{OLD PE'T g* I$ I'J]\ICLEAR'
60.AsubstarrtialnrrinberofhorneownersandpersDnsassoeiatedwiththeE,trdoradoSubdivisioo t uu* disagreed for i-*t "C""t P*
*1d"g of the coveRant language m
issuc. The termg 'recognited h*'i;;H pets', are not dJfi.ned i-n the govenaflts and ar.e not
c.lear oR th-eir froe.
lN'r'H,N' l' AND !ll.J ltPutiHi
61. The evidenei: indieates thet at the time the 1.972 Coveirarts anel 1995 Ancnded
;;"-;;; *=r* i,opt***Ifed chrekeils wcrc not consldered to bc krousehold pcts aird
eould not have been intended witlrjn the meanirrg of I recogni'zed household pets"'
The Flaintiff.s experi wilness has presented affidavit evidenee that ehiekeus are lrot
roo*iA-i-O pets by the majority of persons who own chickens' Further, baekyard
Iivestock (ineluding poul.try) is a recent oceur€nce in general during flrc past ten years"
This signiiieantly inOieates that inbmatler socies ehicksns are not reeogrized as
household pets bY most.
62. Histoncally elriekens have not been eonsirjered reeognizcd household pets by tltc
ECIA anrl rJrey iave historicaily talien enforcement aetioir against indiviqlual oviners who
have had chickens on theirpropefly-
63. While there is no evi.dence tlrat ECIA has ever eonsidered ohiokens as lrousehold
pets" The Defendant's have presented ail-iclavit evlelence flrat enfrrcement action hac
u*i*a at timea. Speoificaltyif) *A ECIA Covcnant enfcrecmcnt offteerhas statedthat
he did not always iake action 0n oovenant violations where tlrere had not be a conrplaint.
(?);; to "if*ui,
t*o owners the ECIA allowed the owners to keep ehickens on their
n***t under a variance for the lives of ilre chickens . En'lbrcement was also stayed on
chieken violations dudng th.e covegaut election proceas (lxoperly to presei-vE thc integriff
of the electiort).
64" .Thete is not historie cvidence that chicken$ ot other livestock have been aceepterl by
the ECIA as atlowable in the Eldorado subdivieion'
65. The covenant eleetiort while nnt hincling for changing, aovenant, hesaltse ne:ther of
;; fip-;ed versions received over 50% of the vote, is signifieant in indicating tlat the
nrejbriry of the voting horncowireffi in Eldorado subdivrsion voted not io inelude c'hiekeffi
*iiii" iftu rneaning o?*household pets" under the covenant language'
66. The intent of the covenants is protection of the ovireffi of Bldorado aud umforurity in
the uses of their properly. The eovcflantg are an important properly rigbt a$d a eontraet
betwccn *rc humeuwners itnd the individual ownff'
67. The ECLA is sn eleeted body which i+ charged with the duty of enlbreing thc
covenantgonbehalfoftheEldoradoowl}crs.Neeessarily,theECIAruustinterprettlreeovenantc which fhey are char'ged with ent.orcing'
68. ,Althougjr the general rule is that tesf ictive coveflallts should be oonstmed in favor
of the free use of properff, ahist *nut*ttion in ileis case would de'&at the intent aud
prr*"t- "f
the eovena$ts aflcl result in an illagieal resull
69. Tlre Defe'clant's interpretation is i-rrconsistent wiflrthe uzufor:niry eontemplatcd by
the eovenanr, "*
,tot*O theiein and ineonsistent with the restrietive covenant purposes
recognized bY taw'
t*.ry***llffffi:.JJHjllHlT'lilaspets' .,::..i.{rrer orrrrl€r$eonrplereu--t1*-*XTffill
{*rsrugruug**s*q:mgrug*gwiubu,uto*t theY w
HIJ it o'eanirrsl'e's's' n .^,t*rleretv subjecr tho Etdorado a:ytfii}#r,
this is
iz*,**:T'HH#J,f-t:'*ffi iffil--lxT"-i}}itr'l'H:f4iffi""
T-[#JHl#*t'+*#*s*s'us'ul;:ontcr their Proi
u,o**in*'d;frij$J*{fg:ntff$i'iJ':iH'*
T:'::":,s'ncrprc,*f :::HHfi:.::trlH-,il#;;Hi#Jft-frEl11i:,-r--i"er.-ss- It would b€ uffea'o"**
""i#r, tlrl ::t h- household * r*i, p*r. irtt*unhridlecl unilnieml tight tn'kl'sF*i,,]i-
t*"Ut"zed by"ntr#.ffi $:l-iffi*{riltrF,Hn1nfl1f+iliff li}f fl$lllni-,-.
f*frf *n*:t;*,ffi*l,T-'l;;;t;ertrreeovenzurts(exeeptn*iszuother t "**ffit*
#+ittrotrt recourse'
T j. consistenr wirh ih6 hi sr*ri eal praotiee in * :m-rff'nffiT#T:;itfi--ilf -
- :f#:'#-iillH*''ffi ff;i[fi",-l''-ilTlT:::l'-%;;o;;**o***u"aiveleutedclirectors'
T6.Insummary,tlreDefendants,inlerpretationisineongistentwiththeirrtentffidprffposes oitt * *oo*our.t* *lr** "*Jrrla ".a-1
ul* *oJ** rule of corrstructirm an*
results ur foreseeabie illogieal;;rrffi;t*i, *ut'u*a under tlre general rule of
eonstnrction'
TT.Baseduponthecons,flletionoftheeoveftsnttefms,thetavran.eltheurrdisputed.faetssubm.:r.fied in both parties *orrfr ib, so,r*r*ry Judgment this court eoncl*des that
chickens are not o,reeognized lt""r-it"io pets", beeaose they are not reeognized' as
lrorrsehciel pets by the Eldcrado comrn-r-rnity and/orthe ECLA aeting on ihek be&alf and
historieally ohiorrens ri.ave never rreen intended ag'"reeogrizcei ltougehold pets" uird*r the
cuveirirll$.
SUMMA-RY JUDGMENT'
7S. sumnaerry judgm.ent is approptiaf€ where the-rs a{s no genurno issues 0f ilratsrial fuut
and t]re illovnilt is cntitled to judgmenl as a matter gf law. Romero v' Ftrillip Morris' ln'o"
2010NMSC-035-
79. The court, after ctnsidcring the rnotious for sumnrary judgrment tngether ivith the
affaehed affidavits and exhibits concludes that flrere axe ilo genutt:e isrues of material faet
*d u,t*tuty judgment f.orthe Plaintiffis appropriate'
80. Eased upou the eonstruetion of fhe eovenant teflns, the law and the undisputed
material .mcts sugffiitred in both parties motions for Srnrnmary Judgment this Coutt
eonEludes that ehj.okens and roosters are n,ot "reoogrjzedheusehold pets"'under thc
eov-enants *na rouy, "ot
be hcpt urmaintained on any tot in rtrs subdivision
El. Thc Defendants afe pernranently re.+hoined and c4ioined from breaching tlrs
Covenantg for the Subdiuision anel eaoh are requited to remove their ehiekens ftom their
;#;i; p,*p*,tie,"
g2, It is fhi.r and just, under the eircutnstanees of this case that the Defendanls be
allowed u r**"nuil*il11r1 of time (until September 30, 2014), to conre into
compliance by removing their ehickens unless otlrerwise agreed by the Farties'
83. Both sides shall bear their orvn sosts and fees'
84. The Plaintiffis requested to pr's,pate tlre f,rnal order and siftmit it to me f'or signatme
after approval aE '"
ltt* by thc Dcfendant. Tliis letter will bs fileq1 iuto the recold on or
about Ap:il 18th" 2014.
I sincerery appreeiatc the profession.arism disprayed by ail counsel and their elients during
tlre headngs i-n this case,
Sineercly,
DI$TF,ICT JUDOE PRO TEM