KELLY v LOVEJOY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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: Decided: Filed: SOH L ii 1s 9 May 6, 1977 Jt9[\8 1.0 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 . now a p p e a l t h a t o r d e r . The c o u r t e n j o i n e d t h e Lovejoys who 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 conc 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. Yerger. 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 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 : 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 I had b e l i e v e d t h r o u g h from t h e s u b d i v i s i o n ? A. 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. "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. 84-406(3) ; 46-801.1; 46-2901(2), R.C.M. 1947. Sections 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 coven 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, St.Rep. 614. Mont . , 552 P.2d 63, 33 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 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 horses. 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 circums 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
