No. 13580
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
JOHN T. KELLY and NICK1 D.
KELLY, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
FLOYD M. LOVEJOY and BEVERLY
LOVEJOY, husband and wife,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Pedersen, Herndon & Harper, Billings, Montana
Gregory S. Munroe argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondents:
Peterson and Hunt, Billings, Montana
Kenneth D. Peterson argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: May 6, 1977
Decided: Jt9[\8 1.0
Filed:
SOH L ii 1s
9
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
P l a i n t i f f s Kelly brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Yellowstone County, s e e k i n g enforcement of a r e s t r i c t i v e
c o v e n a n t by e n j o i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s Lovejoy from m a i n t a i n i n g two
h o r s e s on t h e i r p r o p e r t y . The c o u r t e n j o i n e d t h e Lovejoys who
now a p p e a l t h a t o r d e r . W e reverse.
A t t h e t i m e t h i s a c t i o n was commenced b o t h p l a i n t i f f s
and d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e d i n a s u b d i v i s i o n l o c a t e d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e
o u t s i d e t h e w e s t e r n c i t y l i m i t s of B i l l i n g s , Montana. The sub-
d i v i s i o n i s l o c a t e d i n a n a r e a t h a t i s p r i m a r i l y r e s i d e n t i a l on
t h e e a s t e r n p o r t i o n l o c a t e d n e a r e s t t o t h e c i t y of B i l l i n g s , b u t
development becomes less d e n s e a s o n e n e a r s t h e w e s t e r n boundary.
T h i s s u b d i v i s i o n , known a s t h e Yerger s u b d i v i s i o n , w a s p l a t t e d
i n 1956 by Henry Yerger. S u b s e q u e n t l y i n 1961 r e s t r i c t i v e cove-
n a n t s w e r e imposed upon t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n by Yerger. The
p a r t i c u l a r covenant a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal s t a t e s :
"That no swine, p o u l t r y , g o a t s , o r l i v e s t o c k
s h a l l be p e r m i t t e d on t h e p r e m i s e s . "
T h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a d i s p u t e between two n e i g h b o r s con-
c e r n i n g d e f e n d a n t s ' maintenance of h o r s e s on t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n
v i o l a t i o n o f t h e above c o v e n a n t . The s u b d i v i s i o n h a s a h i s t o r y
o f i t s r e s i d e n t s m a i n t a i n i n g h o r s e s upon t h e i r p r o p e r t y . The
f i r s t e x t e n s i v e development i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n o c c u r r e d i n 1966
and h o r s e s have been p r e s e n t i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n c o n t i n u o u s l y
thereafter. One John M i l l e r , who was t h e second p e r s o n t o move
i n t o t h e s u b d i v i s i o n , purchased f i v e l o t s from Yerger. Subse-
q u e n t l y i n 1968 M i l l e r purchased a h o r s e which h e m a i n t a i n e d on
h i s property f o r t h r e e t o four years. M i l l e r constructed a barn
and f e n c e s on h i s p r o p e r t y which remained a t t h e d a t e t h i s a c t i o n
w a s commenced. M i l l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t n e i t h e r Yerger n o r any
o t h e r r e s i d e n t ever objected t o h i s horse.
Marvin C r i c k moved i n t o t h e s u b d i v i s i o n i n 1973. His
p r e d e c e s s o r had m a i n t a i n e d a h o r s e on t h e p r o p e r t y and a s m a l l
b a r n was c o n s t r u c t e d t h e r e o n . Crick has kept a t l e a s t one horse
on h i s p r o p e r t y from 1973 t o t h e p r e s e n t .
Lovejoys moved i n t o t h e Yerger s u b d i v i s i o n i n August,
1966. I n i t i a l l y t h e Lovejoys purchased f o u r a d j o i n i n g l o t s from
Yerger. S u b s e q u e n t l y , b u t p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t h i s
a c t i o n , Lovejoys purchased two a d d i t i o n a l l o t s which a d j o i n t h e i r
other property. The purpose of b o t h l a n d p u r c h a s e s was t o pro-
v i d e a n a r e a i n which t o m a i n t a i n h o r s e s n e a r t h e i r home. A barn,
h a y s t a c k and o t h e r improvements i n c i d e n t t o t h e maintenance o f
h o r s e s have been c o n s t r u c t e d on t h i s p r o p e r t y . I n i t i a l l y Lovejoys
had one h o r s e o n t h e i r p r o p e r t y ; however i n r e c e n t y e a r s two h o r s e s
have been m a i n t a i n e d .
K e l l y s moved i n t o t h e s u b d i v i s i o n i n August, 1975, n i n e
y e a r s a f t e r t h e Lovejoys. K e l l y , a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r , purchased
a home l o c a t e d a s h o r t d i s t a n c e w e s t of t h e a r e a i n which Lovejoys
keep t h e i r h o r s e s . A g r a s s y f i e l d which i s a p l a t t e d , b u t un-
constructed street, s e p a r a t e s t h e p a r t i e s ' property. Kelly
t e s t i f i e d t h a t from h i s f i r s t v i s i t t o t h e s u b d i v i s i o n he had
n o t i c e d h o r s e s and improvements i n c i d e n t t o t h e i r m a i n t e n a n c e
such a s b a r n s and h a y s t a c k s . H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a s
f u l l y aware t h a t Lovejoys had a t l e a s t one h o r s e p r i o r t o t h e
t i m e he purchased h i s home. I n r e g a r d t o t h e c o v e n a n t i n ques-
t i o n and h i s f e e l i n g s a b o u t i t s o b v i o u s v i o l a t i o n , K e l l y t e s t i f i e d :
"Q. When you moved i n , i s it c o r r e c t t h a t you
were n o t of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t h o r s e s w e r e r e s t r i c t e d
from t h e s u b d i v i s i o n ? A. I had b e l i e v e d t h r o u g h
t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s and had s e e n t h e t i t l e r e p o r t
t h a t l i v e s t o c k was n o t a l l o w e d i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n .
"Q. D i d n ' t it c a u s e you any c o n c e r n t h a t t h e r e w e r e
horses obvious i n evidence i n t h e subdivision?
A. A t t h a t t i m e I d i d n ' t t h i n k it w a s a problem.
"Q. I s it t r u e , t h e n , t h a t a t t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e
you acquiesced in the presence of those horses;
you didn't care? A. Obviously."
A dispute arose between the parties soon after the
Kellys' arrival in the subdivision. Apparently the dispute
centered around Kellys' dog barking at and harassing Lovejoys'
horses.
Thereafter Kellys commenced this suit against Lovejoys
and requested the court to enjoin Lovejoys from maintaining
horses upon their property in violation of the restrictive
covenant. The record reveals that Kellys did not make any
attempt to resolve the problem by negotiation prior to the
commencement of this action. Furthermore Kellys have not sought
injunctive relief against Mr. Crick who also maintains a horse
on his property in the Yerger subdivision.
Lovejoys raise three issues upon appeal:
1. Whether the covenant restricting livestock from the
Yerger subdivision applies to horses.
2. Whether the covenant restricting horses from the
Yerger subdivision is enforceable against the Lovejoys.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion
in granting an injunction on the facts of the instant case.
As to the first issue, we find absolutely no merit in
Lovejoys' contention that horses are not included within the
general term of livestock and therefore are not barred from the
subdivision. True, the covenant does not specifically state
that horses are not permitted in the subdivision. However live-
stock is specifically prohibited and any contention that horses
are not livestock is absurd. The Montana statutes are filled
with definitions of the term livestock which specifically state
that horses are contained within this general category. Sections
84-406(3) ; 46-801.1; 46-2901(2), R.C.M. 1947. In view of the
clear language of the covenant there is nothing for this Court
t o construe. W e have s t a t e d b e f o r e t h a t where t h e l a n g u a g e of
a r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t i s 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 s o f b u t one meaning, it i s t h e d u t y o f 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 o f t h e c o v 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 not contained therein. Higdem v. Whitham,
167 Mont. 201, 536 P.2d 1185.
A s t o t h e second i s s u e , t h e K e l l y s ' a d m i t t e d a c q u i e s c e n c e
t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f Lovejoys' h o r s e s c o n s t i t u t e d a w a i v e r and
K e l l y s a r e t h e r e f o r e e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g t h e r e s t r i c t i v e cove-
n a n t a g a i n s t Lovejoys. Waiver i s g e n e r a l l y d e f i n e d a s a v o l u n t a r y
and i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n t of a known r i g h t , c l a i m o r p r i v i l e g e .
Mundt v. Mallon, 106 Mont. 242, 76 P.2d 326; Farmers E l e v a t o r
Company o f Reserve v . Anderson, Mont . , 552 P.2d 63, 33
St.Rep. 614. Waiver may be proved by e x p r e s s d e c l a r a t i o n s o r by
a c o u r s e of a c t s and c o n d u c t s o a s t o i n d u c e t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e
i n t e n t i o n and purpose was t o waive. Northwestern F i r e and Marine
I n s u r a n c e Co. v. P o l l a r d , 74 Mont. 142, 238 P. 594.
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e K e l l y s were aware o f t h e c o v e n a n t i n
q u e s t i o n p r i o r t o t h e p u r c h a s e of t h e i r home. Kellys v o l u n t a r i l y
and i n t e n t i o n a l l y waived t h e i r r i g h t t o e n f o r c e t h e c o v e n a n t
a g a i n s t Lovejoys by t h e i r a c q u i e s c e n c e i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e
horses. I n view of such w a i v e r K e l l y s a r e now e s t o p p e d t o a s s e r t
t h e c o v e n a n t a g a i n s t Lovejoys.
Whether t h e r e h a s been such a c q u i e s c e n c e a s t o d e f e a t
t h e enforcement o f a v a l i d r e s t r i c t i o n depends upon t h e circum-
s t a n c e s of e a c h c a s e and t h e c h a r a c t e r and m a t e r i a l i t y o f t h e
permitted breach. Kosel v . S t o n e , 146 Mont. 218, 404 P.2d 894.
I n view of t h e above f i n d i n g it i s u n n e c e s s a r y f o r u s t o
r u l e upon t h e t h i r d i s s u e . The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
i s r e v e r s e d and t h e i n j u n c t i o n v a c a t e d . The c a u s e i s remanded
t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r e n t r y o f judgment i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t s
Love j oy .
- 5 -
Justice