Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n
| Citation | 2016 WY 67,375 P.3d 769 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | S–15–0236 |
| Parties | Felix Felicis, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, and Carol Baker and Mark Stein, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Riva Ridge Owners Association, Cody Mueller, John Campbell, and Jeff Hussey, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Representing Appellants: James K. Lubing and Laurie J. Stern of Lubing Law Group, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Lubing.
Representing Appellee Riva Ridge Owners' Association: Kim D. Cannon of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming; Leah C. Schwartz of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Cannon.
Representing Appellees Cody Mueller, John Campbell, John Jackson and Jeff Hussey: J. Denny Moffett of Moffett & Associates, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, and KAUTZ, JJ., and FORGEY, D.J.
, Justice.
[¶1] The Appellants, Felix Felicis, LLC, Carol Baker and Mark Stein (hereinafter the Baker–Steins), filed a Complaint against the Appellees, Riva Ridge Owners Association and the members of the Association's Board of Directors and Site Committee, Cody Mueller, John Campbell, and Jeff Hussey, after the Site Committee rejected the Baker–Stein's building plans for their home and writer's studio in the Riva Ridge subdivision outside of Jackson, Wyoming. The Baker–Steins alleged breach of contract, tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with a contract and prospective economic advantage, injunctive relief, and punitive damages. The Baker–Steins then filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, requesting that the district court determine the meaning of the term “principal residence site” in the covenants, and whether the Baker–Steins must receive permission from the Site Committee before planting trees for landscaping.
[¶2] The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on several issues including the breach of contract claim and that the Baker–Steins must gain Site Committee approval before planting trees for landscaping. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that the covenants intended to protect the landowners' views of the Tetons and interpreted “principal residence site” in a way that required complete invisibility between the homes in the Riva Ridge subdivision. The Baker–Steins appeal the district court's decisions. We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
[¶3] The Baker–Steins raise the following issues for our review:
1) In seeking to interpret an ambiguous restrictive covenant, did the [d]istrict [c]ourt err when it disregarded the intent of the drafter in its legal analysis and adopted the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.1
, which the [d]istrict court read to allow the court to focus on the intent of the collective property owners within the Riva Ridge subdivision rather than the intent of the drafters?
2) Did the [d]istrict [c]ourt err when it granted summary judgment to the homeowners' association on [the Baker–Steins'] claim for damages?
3) Did the [d]istrict [c]ourt err when it granted summary judgment to the homeowners' association on the issue of whether landscaping could be used as a visibility screen only if approved by the homeowners' association?
[¶4] On December 19, 1996, Betty I. Lucas, Russell C. Lucas, James F. Lucas, Lynda E. Lucas, and Leeann K. Lucas (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Declarant”) signed a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Riva Ridge Tracts (covenants). Riva Ridge is an approximately 365 acre area in Teton County that the Declarant divided into seven tracts. Six of the tracts are approximately forty acres, while the seventh tract is just less than 118 acres. In the covenants, the Declarant stated that the property within Riva Ridge “contains significant wildlife habitat and is of high scenic and natural value, and Declarant is adopting the following Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to preserve and maintain the natural character and value of the Property [Riva Ridge] for the benefit of all Owners of the Property or any part thereof.” The covenants established the Riva Ridge Owners Association (the Association) of which every Riva Ridge tract owner is a member. The Association is managed by a three member Board of Directors, and the Board members also serve as the Association's Site Committee. The current members of the Board and Site Committee are Mr. Mueller, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hussey. One of the Site Committee's duties is to consider and act upon building plan proposals for homes in Riva Ridge.
[¶5] As most covenants do, the Riva Ridge covenants specify and restrict certain aspects of the proposed homes in the development. One such restriction addresses the visibility of the homes on the different tracts in the area. That section of the covenants states:
Exhibit H is a topographic map of the area that shows the seven different tracts and the acreage of each tract. Each tract contains a small square with the notation “Homesite” on it.
[¶6] Article X, Section 8 of the covenants allows for the relocation of the building envelopes and the location of the “principal residence site” shown on Exhibit H with the Site Committee's approval under the following conditions:
[¶7] The covenants also require Site Committee approval before a tract owner can alter any part of the tract from its natural state. Specifically, Article VIII, Section 2(a) states:
... no excavation or other work which in any way alters any Tract from its natural or improved state existing on the date such Tract was first conveyed in fee by Declarants to an Owner shall be erected, placed, done or permitted to remain on any Structure or Tract until the plans, specifications and exterior material samples and color selections therefor have been approved in writing and a building permit has been issued by the Site Committee.
Additionally, Article VIII, Section 3(o) states: “No on-site mining or other mineral extraction or Development activities shall be permitted on any Tract, including the removal of gravel; provided that excavation for construction, wildlife enhancement or landscape purposes may be permitted with the prior written approval of the Board.”
[¶8] The covenants were drafted by the Declarant's attorney, David Larsen. During the process, Mr. Larsen and a land surveyor, Sean O'Malley, went to Riva Ridge to look at the general area of what would become the seven tracts in the development. The two put a story pole on each of the tracts to make sure the plans would comply with county zoning regulations regarding scenic overlay and skylining.1 They also used the story poles to determine the visibility of potential development on each tract from each of the other tracts in the development. They marked the designated spot where the story poles were placed on each tract with green fence posts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grovenburg v. Rustle Meadow Assocs., LLC
...covenants" and "a case involving a challenge to [a] discretionary decision" [emphasis omitted] ); Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Assn ., 375 P.3d 769, 775 (Wyo. 2016) (distinguishing between questions "about the meaning of the covenants" and "the question [of] whether the associati......
-
Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Props., Inc.
...omitted). The construction and interpretation of a contract also is a matter of law that we review de novo. Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n , 2016 WY 67, ¶ 16, 375 P.3d 769, 774 (Wyo. 2016) (citations omitted).[¶43] We addressed a similar issue in Anderson v. Bommer , 926 P.2d......
-
Anadarko Land Corp. v. Family Tree Corp.
...of material fact are present and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c) ; Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n , 2016 WY 67, ¶ 29, 375 P.3d 769, 778 (Wyo. 2016). We review a grant of summary judgment deciding a question of law de novo. Id . We a......
-
Gumpel v. Copperleaf Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
...of material fact are present and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c) ; Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n , 2016 WY 67, ¶ 29, 375 P.3d 769, 275 P.3d 769, 778 (Wyo. 2016). We review a grant of summary judgment deciding a question of law de n......