Rhue v. Cheyenne Homes, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 22105,22105
• Citation: 168 Colo. 6,449 P.2d 361
• Parties: Leonard (Dick) RHUE and Family Homes, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. CHEYENNE HOMES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 361

449 P.2d 361

168 Colo. 6

Leonard (Dick) RHUE and Family Homes, Inc., a Colorado

corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. CHEYENNE HOMES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant in Error.

No. 22105.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Jan. 20, 1969.

Raymond Duitch, Colorado Springs, for plaintiffs in error.

Elwood M. Haynie, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.

PRINGLE, Justice.

In the trial court, Cheyenne Homes, Inc., obtained an injunction prohibiting Leonard Rhue and Family Homes, Inc., hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs in error, from moving a thirty year old Spanish style house into a new subdivision which was about 80% Improved and which contained only modern ranch style or split level homes.

At the time that the subdivision in which the plaintiffs in error seek to locate this house was platted, the owner placed upon the entire area certain restrictive covenants contained in a 'Declaration of Protective Covenants,' which was duly recorded. As recited in the document, these protective covenants were for the purpose of 'protecting the present and future values of the properties located' in the subdivision. Admittedly, the house which the plaintiffs in error wish to put in the subdivision does not violate any of the few specific restrictions contained in the protective covenants. However, paragraph C--2 of the recorded protective covenants contains the following declaration:

'C--2 No building shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure shall have been approved by the architectural control committee * * *'

Plaintiffs in error failed to submit their plans to the architectural control committee, and the trial court, in entering its injunction, held (1) that such failure constituted a breach of the restrictive covenants, and (2) that the placing of the house would not be in harmony with the existing neighborhood and would depreciate property values in the area.

Plaintiffs in error contend that restriction C--2 is not enforceable because no specific standards are contained therein to guide the committee in determining the approval or disapproval of plans when submitted. We disagree.

It is no secret that housing today is developed by subdividers who, through the use of restrictive covenants, guarantee to the purchaser that his house will be protected against adjacent construction which will impair its value, and that a general plan of construction will be followed. Modern legal authority recognizes this reality and recognizes also that the approval of plans by an architectural control committee is one method by which guarantees of value and general plan of construction can be accomplished and maintained.

So long as the intention of the covenant is clear (and in the present case it is clearly to protect present and future property values in the subdivision), covenants such as the one before us have been up-held against the contention that they lacked specific restrictions providing a framework within which the architectural committee must act. Winslette v. Keeler, 220 Ga. 100, 137 S.E.2d 288; Kirkley v. Seipelt, 212 Md. 127, 128 A.2d 430; Fairfax Community Assoc. v. Boughton, 127 N.E.2d 641 (Ohio Com.Pl.); Hannula v. Hacienda Homes, 34 Cal.2d 442, 211 P.2d 302, 19 A.L.R.2d 1268. In Kirkley v. Seipelt, supra, the plaintiff in...