No. 12873
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA
F
1975
E M R HIGDEM and VERDA HIGDEM,
L E
husband and w i f e ,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,
WILLIAM R. W I H M and J U N G YUL WHITHAM,
HT A
husband and w i f e ,
Defendants and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
McGarvey and Moore, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
James D. Moore argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
For Respondents:
Fennessy, Crocker and Harman, Libby, Montana
David W. Harman argued, Libby, Montana
Submitted: May 9 , 1975
Decided: Jbp 1 3 19%
Filed : 1..
. , lJj'L
2 '
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t s W i l l i a m R . Whitham and
Jung Yul Whitham from a n o r d e r and judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s -
t r i c t c o u r t , L i n c o l n County, h o l d i n g t h a t a g a r a g e b u i l t by t h e
d e f e n d a n t s v i o l a t e d c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s and o r d e r i n g
t h e g a r a g e removed. The m a t t e r was t r i e d by t h e c o u r t , s i t t i n g
without a jury.
The m a t t e r was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e s e
agreed f a c t s :
"That p l a i n t i f f s [Elmer Higdem and Verda Higdem]
and d e f e n d a n t s a r e n e i g h b o r s and owners of a d j a -
c e n t l o t s of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Mountain V i e w P a r k ,
a s u b d i v i s i o n i n L i n c o l n County, Montana, which
i s located approximately one-half m i l e n o r t h of
Libby, Montana. P l a i n t i f f s a r e owners of Lot 1,
Block 6 o f Mountain View P a r k . Defendants a r e
owners of Lot 2 , Block 6 of Mountain View P a r k .
P l a i n t i f f s 1 l o t i s b o r d e r e d on two s i d e s by ded-
i c a t e d s t r e e t s , i n t h e r e a r by a n a l l e y and t o
t h e w e s t by d e f e n d a n t s ' l o t . D e f e n d a n t s have
f r o n t a g e on a d e d i c a t e d s t r e e t , a n a l l e y t o t h e
r e a r , p l a i n t i f f s t o t h e e a s t and by McGlumphys,
not p a r t i e s t o t h i s action, t o t h e w e s t . That
Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 6 Mountain View P a r k
owned by p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
a r e s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s of
r e c o r d a t Book 109 Page 155 Book of Deeds a t t h e
o f f i c e of t h e L i n c o l n County C l e r k and Recorder
* * *.
"That on o r , a b o u t A p r i l 2 4 , 1974 d e f e n d a n t s com-
menced c o n s t r u c t i o n on a g a r a g e a d d i t i o n on t h e i r
l o t , which g a r a g e i s 34 f e e t wide, 38 f e e t d e e p
and i t s maximum h e i g h t w i l l be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 5
f e e t 9 i n c h e s . The g a r a g e a d d i t i o n w i l l c o n t a i n
t h r e e g a r a g e d o o r s and w i l l be a t t a c h e d t o t h e
d w e l l i n g l o c a t e d on t h e l o t . A l l of t h e p e r t i n e n t
l o t s a r e 5 0 f e e t wide by 125 f e e t d e e p .
"That t h e p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s s h a r e a w e l l
s y s t e m , t h a t t h e w e l l system i s e n c l o s e d above t h e
s u r f a c e of t h e ground; t h a t t h e w a t e r s o u r c e i s
approximately forty-two ( 4 2 ' ) beneath t h e s u r f a c e
of t h e ground.
"That t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t one t i m e i n q u i r e d among
n e i g h b o r s i n t o t h e e f f i c a c y of p e r f o r m i n g o c c a s i o n a l
s m a l l mechanical j o b s , such a s t u n e - u p s , w i t h i n t h e
g a r a g e s t r u c t u r e and was informed by n e i g h b o r s
t h a t t h e y would o b j e c t t o s u c h a u s e of t h e s a i d
garage s t r u c t u r e .
"That t h e g a r a g e i n q u e s t i o n d o e s n o t e n c r o a c h
upon p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . "
The r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e a g r e e d
statement of f a c t s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e :
"1. The p u r c h a s e r s , a s t o t h e s a i d l o t s of l a n d
h e r e b y conveyed, and w i t h i n t e n t t o b i n d a l l
p e r s o n s i n whom t h e s a i d l o t s h e r e b y conveyed
s h a l l f o r t h e t i m e b e i n g be v e s t e d , b u t n o t s o a s
t o be p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e under t h i s c o v e n a n t a f t e r
having p a r t e d with t h e s a i d l o t s , f o r themselves
and t h e i r h e i r s and a s s i g n s h e r e b y c o v e n a n t w i t h
t h e s e l l e r s and t h e i r a s s i g n s a s f o l l o w s :
" a . Not t o e r e c t any b u i l d i n g o t h e r t h a n a
s i n g l e d e t a c h e d d w e l l i n g house, e i t h e r w i t h o r
w i t h o u t a g a r a g e o r o t h e r l i k e and n e c e s s a r y o u t -
b u i l d i n g , upon t h e s a i d l o t s of l a n d hereby conveyed,
o r any p a r t t h e r e o f .
"b. Not t o e r e c t o r s u f f e r t o be e r e c t e d upon
s a i d l o t s o f l a n d hereby conveyed any d w e l l i n g house
a t a c o s t of l e s s t h a n $10,000.00, s u c h c o s t t o be
c a l c u l a t e d upon t h e n e t c o s t of l a b o r and m a t e r i a l
a l o n e , e s t i m a t e d a t p r i c e s now c u r r e n t .
" c . Not t o u s e any b u i l d i n g t o be e r e c t e d upon
s a i d l o t o f l a n d h e r e b y conveyed o r any p a r t t h e r e o f ,
f o r any p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n t h o s e i n c i d e n t t o t h e u s e
o f a p r i v a t e d w e l l i n g house o n l y ; t h i s p r o v i s i o n b e i n g
i n t e n d e d t o p r o h i b i t t h e u s e of any h o u s i n g f o r
l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y , o r f o r any commercial p u r p o s e , p r o v i d e d ,
however, t h a t n o t h i n g h e r e i n i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o h i b i t
u s e of any s u c h b u i l d i n g f o r p r i v a t e workshops, g r e e n -
houses o r o t h e r l i k e p u r p o s e s . "
With t h e a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s and c o v e n a n t s b e f o r e
i t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y of p l a i n t i f f s and de-
f e n d a n t s and t h a t of one Glenn M u e l l e r , a n e i g h b o r .
Defendant William Whitham t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had purchased
t h e p r o p e r t y s e v e r a l y e a r s ago and a t t h a t t i m e had c o n s i d e r e d
t a k i n g odd j o b s when he g o t t h e g a r a g e b u i l t , b u t he e n c o u n t e r e d
s u c h o p p o s i t i o n from n e i g h b o r s t h a t he abandoned t h a t i d e a and
had s o informed h i s n e i g h b o r s ; t h a t t h e one c a r g a r a g e t h a t came
w i t h t h e house was i n a d e q u a t e f o r h i s u s e and t h a t of h i s f a m i l y ,
a w i f e and t h r e e c h i l d r e n , who between them owned t h r e e compact
s t a t i o n wagons, two p i c k u p s , a Suzuki m o t o r c y c l e , and two
t r a i l Hondas; t h a t one of t h e r e a s o n s f o r b u i l d i n g a l a r g e
g a r a g e was t o f u r n i s h s t o r a g e f o r t h e v e h i c l e s , t o o l s , lawn e q u i p -
ment, e x t r a t i r e s and f i r e w o o d ; t h a t a f t e r b u i l d i n g t h e g a r a g e
h e c o n v e r t e d t h e o l d one c a r g a r a g e i n t o a d e n . Whitham's w i f e
t e s t i f i e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s h e r husband.
P l a i n t i f f Elmer Higdem, a l o c a l a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r , t e s t i -
f i e d t h a t he and h i s f a m i l y had l i v e d i n t h e a d d i t i o n o v e r t e n
y e a r s ; t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t s moved i n B i l l Whitham t o l d
him of h i s i n t e n t t o b u i l d a g a r a g e and h e m i g h t do odd j o b s i n
i t a s a mechanic; t h a t he t o l d Whitham he would o b j e c t t o any
s u c h commercial work; t h a t a s t o t h e g a r a g e , h e would n o t have
o b j e c t e d t o a two s t a l l g a r a g e b u t when he saw t h e s i z e of t h e
a c t u a l g a r a g e d e f e n d a n t w a s b u i l d i n g , h e o b j e c t e d and f i l e d a
c o m p l a i n t on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g v i o l a t e d t h e r e s t r i c t i v e
c o v e n a n t s , and i n t e r f e r e d . w i t h h i s easement of l i g h t and a i r .
P l a i n t i f f Verda Higdemls t e s t i m o n y concerned a n e x h i b i t s h e had
p r e p a r e d of t h e p l a t s i n q u e s t i o n .
The t e s t i m o n y of M u e l l e r , a n e i g h b o r , concerned t h e f a c t
t h a t d e f e n d a n t had e a r l i e r d i s c u s s e d b u i l d i n g a new g a r a g e w i t h
him and t h a t he was c o n s i d e r i n g t a k i n g s m a l l mechanical j o b s a t
h i s home.
The t r i a l c o u r t made n i n e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , none harmful
t o d e f e n d a n t and t h e n concluded:
"1. The g a r a g e a d d i t i o n i s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e
r e s t r i c t i v e covenants i n t h a t defendants already
had an a t t a c h e d g a r a g e on s a i d p r o p e r t y ; and i s
not a necessary outbuilding.
" l a . That t h e a d d i t i o n a l b u i l d i n g , i t s s i z e and
t h e p u r p o s e i n t e n d e d a r e i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e
r e s t r i c t i v e covenants.
"2. That s a i d c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p a r e n t l y w i l l n o t
r e s u l t i n a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i n g t h e w a t e r system.
"3. That s a i d g a r a g e a d d i t i o n d o e s n o t v i o l a t e
any zoning r e g u l a t i o n s o r C i t y O r d i n a n c e s , s i n c e
none a r e now i n e x i s t e n c e .
"4. That d e f e n d a n t s should remove s a i d g a r a g e
a d d i t i o n from t h e p r e m i s e s due t o d e f e n d a n t s 1
v i o l a t i n g t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants.
"5. Plaintiffs are entitled t o t h e i r costs."
Defendants a p p e a l and p r e s e n t two i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w :
1. Are t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s o f law s u p p o r t -
ed by t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t ?
2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e language
of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants s o a s t o p r o h i b i t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
of d e f e n d a n t s ' g a r a g e ?
Regarding i s s u e No. 1, we f i n d t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of law, i f
t h a t t h e y a r e , a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t .
~ o n c l u s i o n s4 and 5 s i m p l y s t a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d remove t h e
g a r a g e and pay p l a i n t i f f s t h e i r c o s t s . These, we b e l i e v e , a r e
remedies, n o t proper conclusions.
A f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , d e f e n d a n t s moved f o r a
new t r i a l , b u t t h i s was d e n i e d , b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Under Montana's
Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e would have been t o
proceed under Rule 5 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P.
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t .
From t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s it would a p p e a r t h e o r d e r f o r removal
of t h e g a r a g e must have been based on i t s c o n c l u s i o n l a :
"That t h e a d d i t i o n a l b u i l d i n g , i t s s i z e and t h e
p u r p o s e i n t e n d e d a r e i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e res-
t r i c t i v e covenants."
However, no r e f e r e n c e i s made t o a s p e c i f i c c o v e n a n t and none of
t h e c o v e n a n t s r e l a t e t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , e x i s t e n c e , o r s i z e of any
b u i l d i n g s on t h e l a n d . Covenant " c " o n l y r e l a t e s t o t h e u s e o f
t h e l a n d and t h e u s e of t h e s t r u c t u r e s . The o n l y l a n g u a g e i n
c o v e n a n t " a " which i n any way might r e l a t e t o s i z e , a l b e i t i n -
d i r e c t l y , i s t h e phrase "necessary outbuildings".
H e r e , we a r e considering a garage. W note t h e term
e
" n e c e s s a r y " does n o t p r o c e e d t h e t e r m " g a r a g e " , b u t r a t h e r t h e
cerm " o u t b u i l d i n g " . Assuming t h e t r i a l c o u r t s u p e r i m p o s e d t h e
t e r m " n e c e s s a r y " upon t h e new g a r a g e , w e l o o k t o a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n
a£ t h i s C o u r t , Timmerman v . G a b r i e l , 1 5 5 Mont. 294, 298, 470 P.2d
528, t o i n t e r p r e t t h e t e r m "necessary" i n a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant.
I n Timmerman t h e C o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a " d o u b l e -
wide" t r a i l e r f e l l w i t h i n t h e meaning o f a c o v e n a n t p r o h i b i t i n g
trailers. The C o u r t s a i d :
"The c o n s t r u c t i o n o f c o v e n a n t s i n d e e d s t o p r o p -
e r t y i s n o t u n l i k e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of c o n t r a c t s .
" S e c t i o n 13-710, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :
" ' T h e words of a c o n t r a c t a r e t o b e u n d e r s t o o d i n
t h e i r o r d i n a r y and popular s e n s e , r a t h e r t h a n
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r s t r i c t l e g a l meaning, u n l e s s
u s e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n a t e c h n i c a l s e n s e , o r un-
less a s p e c i a l meaning i s g i v e n t o them by u s a g e ,
i n which c a s e t h e l a t t e r must be f o l l o w e d . " '
Montana d o e s n o t have c a s e a u t h o r i t y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e t e r m
" n e c e s s a r y o u t b u i l d i n g s " w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a r e s t r i c t i v e cove-
n a n t , b u t w e f i n d a number o f c a s e s t h r o u g h o u t o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s
c o n s t r u i n g t h e word " n e c e s s a r y " t o mean c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e d w e l l i n g
and w e s o hold here. Granger v . B o u l l s , 2 1 Wash.2d 597, 152 P.2d
325; Thompson v . P e s t C o n t r o l Comm., (La. 1 9 5 4 ) , 75 S.2d 406; King
v . K u g l e r , 17 C a l . R p t r . 504; 92 ALR2d 872. Here, t h e new g a r a g e
i s c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e h o u s e and i s i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e a e s t h e t i c
q u a l i t y of t h e a r e a . The c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h e g a r a g e must be
t o r n down and removed i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by a n y o f i t s f i n d i n g s .
The s e c o n d i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n s t r u i n g
t h e language of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d
i n o r d e r i n g t h e g a r a g e removed.
T h i s C o u r t i n Dunphy v . Anaconda Co., 1 5 1 Mont. 76, 8 0 ,
4 3 8 P.2d 660, spoke t o t h e r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t
a r e a p p l i c a b l e here:
"Althougn v a r i o u s r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n
have been d e v e l o p e d and employed i n d i v e r s e
c a s e s t h a t have come b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t i n t h e
p a s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t o be a p p l i c a b l e
t o t h e i n s t a n t case i n determining l e g i s l a t i v e
i n t e n t . The i n t e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e must
f i r s t be d e t e r m i n e d from t h e p l a i n meaning of
t h e words u s e d , and i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e
s t a t u t e c a n be s o d e t e r m i n e d , t h e c o u r t s may
n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y any o t h e r means o f i n t e r -
pretation. [Citing cases.] Where t h e language of
a s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and
c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e
i s nothing l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t t o construe. [Citing
cases.] The f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t i s s i m p l y t o
a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what i n t e r m s o r i n sub-
s t a n c e i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t
what h a s been o m i t t e d . [Citing cases.] In short,
it i s s i m p l y t h e d u t y of t h e Supreme C o u r t t o
c o n s t r u e t h e law a s i t f i n d s i t . [ C i t i n g c a s e s . ] "
Applying t h e above p r i n c i p l e s t o c o n s t r u i n g t h e language of t h e
r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s h e r e , w e h o l d t h a t where t h e words a r e p l a i n ,
unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n and a d m i t of b u t one meaning, t h e n
i t i s t h e d u t y of t h i s C o u r t t o d e c l a r e what t h e t e r m s of t h e cov-
e n a n t s c o n t a i n and n o t t o i n s e r t a l i m i t a t i o n n o t c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n .
I n t h e i r b r i e f and on o r a l argument, p l a i n t i f f s a r g u e d i n
the
s u p p o r t o f / t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n of law l a , which r e f e r s t o
t h e s i z e of t h e g a r a g e . They r e l y on c a s e a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t
t h e i r p o s i t i o n , and c i t e t h r e e c a s e s . Hansen v . F a c i o n e , 294 Mich.
473, 293 N.W. 723; Moore v . White, (Okla. 1 9 5 8 ) , 323 P.2d 352;
Bruce v . McClees, 1 1 0 N.J.E. 92, 158 A . 849. We find these cases
d i f f e r f a c t u a l l y from t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . I n Bruce t h e c o v e n a n t had
a s e t back p r o v i s o of a t l e a s t 1 0 0 f e e t from t h e s t r e e t and much
of t h e c a s e t u r n e d on i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p r o v i s o . Hansen i n v o l v e d
a d e f e n d a n t who owned and o p e r a t e d two f i v e t o n t r u c k s f o r h a u l i n g
r u b b i s h and h e b u i l t a 4 0 f o o t by 50 f o o t g a r a g e , i n a r e s t r i c t e d
a r e a , t o accommodate h i s b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s . While Moore i s
c l o s e t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e f a c t w i s e , t h e r e was a s e t back r e g u l a -
t i o n and a s p a c e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t a k e s Moore o u t of t h e f a c t s i t -
uation here.
The o v e r r i d i n g p o l i c y of i n d i v i d u a l e x p r e s s i o n i n f r e e and
r e a s o n a b l e l a n d u s e d i c t a t e s t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n s s h o u l d n o t be
a i d e d o r extended by i m p l i c a t i o n o r e n l a r g e d by c o n s t r u c t i o n .
Sporn v . O v e r h o l t , 175 Kan. 1 9 7 , 262 P.2d 828; F l a k s v . Wichman,
128 Col. 45, 260 P.2d 737; Granger v . B o u l l s , 2 1 Wash.2d 597,
Three b a s i c r u l e s may be g l e a n e d from t h e s e c a s e s :
(1) t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d ,
( 2 ) t h a t a m b i g u i t i e s be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r of f r e e u s e
of p r o p e r t y , and
( 3 ) t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d n o t have b r o a d l y
i n t e r p r e t e d and imposed t h e s e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s i n t e r m s
of what t h e p a r t i e s would have d e s i r e d had t h e y i n i t i a l l y been
confronted with questions l a t e r developing.
The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e
cause returned t o t h e d i s t r i c t court with d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r
judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s .
................................
Justices
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e
i n t h i s cause.
Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g :
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t h e r e b u t do n o t b e l i e v e we
need beyond t h e c o v e n a n t l a n g u a g e find that the trial
c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s are n o t c o r r e c t .
Justice