Summary 2009 WY 55

Summary of Decision issued April 21, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Riverview Heights Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Rislov

Citation: 2009 WY 55

Docket Number: S-08-0126

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge.

Representing Appellant Riverview Heights: Kelly A. Rudd, Baldwin, Crocker & Rudd, PC, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Rislov: Pamala M. Brondos and Peter C. Nicolaysen, Nicolaysen & Wilking, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Riverview Heights, a residential subdivision northwest of Riverton, filed suit against Rislov seeking to enforce an amendment to the subdivision’s restrictive covenants. Riverview Heights contended the district court erred in ruling that the 2004 Amended Covenants were invalid as a matter of law.
Restrictive covenants are interpreted according to principles of contract law. The Court focused on Paragraph 14 which stated the covenants were irrevocable and perpetual unless amended by instruments executed and acknowledged in the form prescribed for the execution of deed by 75% of the owners of the total acreage contained in the tract. Riverview Heights contended that the 2004 Amendment complied with the requirements because the officers signed the document and their signatures were notarized. The Court was unconvinced because the language asked for the signatures of 75% of the owners.
The Court referred to Goglio v. Star Valley Ranch Ass’n making note that homeowners associations serve three primary functions: levying and collecting assessments; managing and maintaining common property for the benefit of residents; and enforcing covenants that govern developments. The Court concluded that regardless of any inherent powers of the Association’s officers, they cannot amend the covenants without the requisite approval of 75% of the lot owners.
Attached to the 2004 Amendment were signature pages purporting to reflect approval of the amendment. Several of the pages were not notarized. Those not notarized were not properly executed and therefore were ineffective as approvals of the Amendment. Subtracting out the ineffective approvals, only 64% of the total owners approved the Amendment.

Conclusion: The Court determined the 2004 Amendment to the restrictive covenants was invalid. It affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment against the Association.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ddt4p9 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]