['

},/!ARKA" esAeARr:p}{
E3gSTRECT' CG[JF.{T
.NJB

GE trtr.q} T:tr1}4

April4,2014
.Iohn P.IdaYs, Esq-

cAs$i,m; HAYS

&FREIDMIAN, F'A'

530-E Hgrkle Road Sauta Fc" F[cw Mexico S7505

Ronald. Van Amberg, EsE"

K. StephenRoYee, Esq" ARJ,AND & A"SSOCIATES, LLC 201 Third gt. NW, Ste. 505
;\lbuqu-erque, t.TM
S71 02

vAH AMBtrRfi? XIOGERB' YEPA' ABEN'A & GOMEZ, LLP

F.O. Eox 14a7 Sant*Fe, New Mexiso 87504'1477

Ine' vs' Susan Eillings' et al' Case Re: Eldorado Comnruniry Improvenrent Assoeiation, of New Judicial Distu'iet Court in ihc State Nunrber D-0101-CV.20 n-AnSn in {he First Mexico,
Dear Corrlrsel, Judgmcnt Motians frled by both parties This letter oonteins my deeisicn on drc Sutnmaty grant the Ftainii{frl,Motion f'ar $umff'afy in this case, I artivJatmy decision to review and delil-reration of the l+w and the .lr6gnlent otrly after "o*pLr1,'g a th""orTgh I have detailedthe feasons'fof partie+' rnoti.ons" **liUit*, affraavits #"l"gul atgumert'. the time to thorcughly csnsidet tlLe my decirion betow. i sincerely appreciate f,avine
issucs Presented-

,SUMMARY OF' NSSIJESI,. of the Eldorado at $anta Fa Tire Parties have ea-eh takeil riifferent intelpretations *'No cOvstlant in issue provides that restrictive T-he eovenants. reshietive Subdivigion.,s
1

uri*"f*rUira*"rp*olt'ry'sl:allbek-eptorrnaintairearloually1*t'exuuptrecr"rgttir'ud
l:ousehold Pets'

'."
ease are unelispute4

Ot" if-- r"*-rf-f faets lili&is

a

Judgment to-the Court,arguing 2. Eoth Far'ries:hi.ave subminedMotions for $urnrnary and tle Cc'rt shnuld' enter a decisinn se

malter of lavr.

COVEI\IAI{TS"
is aNevr h{exioc' laws of the $tate of New *rra "r4*t1* nonpro{ir coryoffi#;;;J?La tf'- gi*-tado at Santa Fe eubdivision is Mexiso, and New Mexieo (the '"Subdivision'")' lqcateql in Santa f- il"*ry' Eoard of Direstorc- The the ECIA is eorporation' a non-profit As entiiy' governrnental or quasi-governrirental EciA is not a rounicipali.ty or other
('"ECLA lonmuniry Imptovement Associatron

t'r-;;;""*";;;' **r*i"tflffit

d"r.s;;;*-

4.

glY1-ttlits

rEeords of S.TheECIAiechatgcdwi.thcrrforeingtheAmlnde{arrdRestatedFr'otectiveCovenants Fe' wlrioh are resorded in the s*tu etao*do"ut r* n*firi;i; anrl Buildine and proteetion of all ("the C.-"."*itf fot the bene'fit p'u

Sanra

llqr.rfrty,

N;;il;o

Eldorado residents'

6.TlreoriginaldeveloperofEldoradoatSairtaFein,l.gTladoptedandreeordcd general for Eldorado at Santa Fe' as a

proteetive Coo*o#*

*? g*fAhg n**tr1*tioos

;;#;,; 7,

pl* f;iJ*eropme:nt

of the subdivisiott"
(Jwners of the lots in avote of the majonty of the

by T.hc covenants were adopted

the Subdivision in 1995'

B.TheAmendedandRestatedPrcteetiveCovefianlsan.dBuildingRestrictionsforthe
$ubdi.wisi-on Provide
:

Sgetionll.HouselroldPets.Noanimals.birdsorpo4qslrallbekeptormedntainedon *'"y b--k-pt thereon in reasonable ariy lot, except'# gti;; rtt.*r*ra e# for any commercial use unlt rile of the oecupants but not nunrbem as pds for the pleasure Eldorado' At all times' dogs 1{g:"* p*ooit io i*iil'uiJi*' r, or purpose. deseribed in the otled 6y thoit qwners in the illanner ,lrrt *A resirainJ kept, be nrust Ordinanoe' $anta Fe Caunqy Aniffial Confiol

tl*

4!;ii;*'-

g,Tlrefusl,ssnluncerrfthiscoveuanthasbeenpartrrfrhecovef,alrtssinoelgTZ. l0.Thedefendantsaroeachtegidentialprope{oY:**inthcEld.oradosubdivisionat is strtrject nu*n of these resielential properties Fe located irt ,$anta Fe, New nn--ifo"
Santa

to the flovenant'q

tH* properties. It ii*i*tta*ts ale com.rflerpiatly usmg their ehiekens'

tltat are houscd 1i. The Def.endaurts eaeh own ehickens *ti'ti.-"-'- ;;OouttW*"

i*';;;irp;a

and eared for on their respective There are no allegations that the

no a'lleged covenant violations' suoh as 12. In tlie conrplaint, th.e Flalntiffraises the eoveDantg" no trraintain chiehens anel t}iar undEr nuisanees, orrvilut iL* DetbnclanB the tsidor.ado $ubdivision'' chickens ,*n* *u,i:rt"io*d vrithin

rsosteffi trecause .Ihe Defendants admitthat trrry ea$i1ct rrainLuir 13. because of theit noise'

tb,er' arc a nuisanee

$ OF TH"E COVEH-'4NT' THE FARTIES' INTERPETATION L4.ttisundisputedtlratthedefendarr,LshavetakenxhepositlonthaJa|Igltlmals'birdsnnd

il-,;,;;;**rtyitin";n*;;y*l;5:Ht[';"*:lltli'*:fl-ffi1?ceunder suclr
atrJ reuognizcs tlre sovenant Provisions)'

follow'urg fesponse: Answers eontain the I-Inder Interrogatory in a *eJict*-'ntial seftiog' The Defendants, t.,i--aer af persons,.iii"* *. by t1e household' A household is a groun thouu p*1**on*zed ,,-* thev ]rouseholp 9u*u "# the eovenants, ,**o'g-ri*Ld J"O, in tt'Jcase of Defendauts' *h* ;-;rt is the rro**uor+ as trt*it ehiekens pet$'"

'#;;";p"r*a

firiiJ;rtf;

**

theit "n"**ilt-l5.Consequently,itisundispu':qqT*nuDefendants'lyyetakentlropositionttrat tr# *'itnl* u'* t**ognized by househola rr* as chickerrs are a[oweJ
lrr-r

r-rsehol d$'+s Pets'

.,reecgnizcd

16.IligundisputeelthatthePinintiff*(ECIA)intcrprotationisthatelriekEnsaf,enot of tfie Eldsfadtr" $ covenants'

h".*.Toil;-*r" *rtrr'- d;;i"g

|7,Specifrcal$theFlaintiffeontendsthat(a)theoovenantsrurarnbigul}slJ.exclude ;J r'uj even tlte oovenant provi'ron rE

-if t'o*tl'oq q{; ehickens the '**J'tl*J '" *"u-.1;1r""**'tlish atnlriguous, rrr- riliiCi-,r housahold pets' as ehickens are nott*t'ogui"*d

***ittg

of the disputed temrs

lB.Consequent$,itisurrdisputedtharttreFlaintiffhastakenlhepositiontlratclriekens

arenotaltowed#i'u**noro-p*eu*t;'il*iin*'trr*.nr'oo'uooeommunitynorbroad*r

ft

-W recognir'o ehiokens as household' Ber*'

A.PFLICABLE LAW.
ambiguons' iflthe covenant language is detennine to required 19. The courL i.s first ditTerently does *ot }anguage or a covenant the interpret parties 20. Just beeause two u::: eonsider whethetboth meal] the eovenanr is ambiguous. i-nteqptetatlo**

#t-*-na6le

in the centext of the ease'

i;;;fiil **J

is 2l.Amhigurffegj.stswheuawordorphtaseissuseeptibletotwoorlnolemcanings. t*-au*iaiog wheths a covenan"t quur#J;;l;;r u i* exisrs Z't whether ambiguiry a whqle' S"U"tinii' Roybal doerrm;;;; the at **:to*i. '-NMCA-086" arnbigucus

e.#t*evidenoe 22.Con'rextualurxdeGtandiflgi*.-*:::,*-'ytoconctnrtrrestrietivesftvsSant$inamarurer uo-:' **p*'*titfl'Jo'ri'ilu-*-" terfll*q' Agus ecnsistent wltlrtire-intent * t?181* eovera*t's ;*d-di-i *, v1:q. to nnt ro exptai* ,, *l*iff, but t+qh[ca-054' 149 NivI 812' d,*ilAot Assoeiarion;. $tr Fria save the CIpen "**

is adffiissible

23. In dctenni*ing unelear', a goilrt may hear cvidenee Of'peff'Ofmaneeeontraet a:rd of any relevent u5flgc of ft'ade, eourse of dealing and eO*rse Agua Frta'
must bs Eensidcr*d rea-:orlably, though sfictlyaud an illogical, unnatural, or strained eonsfruetion must be avoided. We will not read rcstrietions on the use afld enjoyment of the land irrto the cavenant by implication arrd rve rnust give wor&r in the resfristive eovenant their ordinary and intended rn*animg. ,kr eonstrruing a Brotebtive covefifffit*.a court is to gxve effeet to flre intention of the parties as showf,. by U:e lamguage of the whole inshl$nent, {:onsidered with flre cir.cumstance$ $wrCIurding the rransaotion, and the in making the Farfies restrietions. Agua Frta citfuig Montova v Barreras, "_bjl-l-qlta! sr NM 749 (rgz}t, Hiil v cilrty-ornanni+n -f ftdrrk;;; iggo_ I'IM$C-008 anrl Hines cory. v. city of nb*quurqou. si lln r 3r 1 (r g$0)^

in whieh the paftfenfrave agre*el wlretJrer a term or expression to Oi thc of the eireuntstAneeg Sufl'ounding the nAAHlng

?4, I{e*tnetive covrilants

The supreme court has hekl that ambiguous or unclear Language in a res[rictive ';ov*fiaill rrrusl be resulvcd "irr favc.]r'f rhc rr*- *tii,ryrrr*rir of rtr* pruperly arrcl agai'st restrictions'' At t{e sarne titne the $upreme court has instruetsd that the nrle of strict eonetruetion muet be eubordinate to the.intefltio*.f *h$;ies r{s refla*ted by the language of the whox,e instlunent" the cireurirstances s#ounding the t'ansaetionu and the purposes eniraating the restrietions. Agua Fria.

25'

26' The general ruji ttrlt ambiguities ooneerning resh'ietive covenants should be resolved iru favar ofthe free enjiinrnent and ug;;;t *ud*ii*n*, but thjs rule cannot i:e the obvious purpo$* of the rJstu'isrions, fJ,*-FJidErbat soveirr.

rh-;#ffi;ffi-E

treated seryitudcs, the expressed iutenrion of the partiee is primarv imlortanec. Thelr 3f of alt of the eircumsranees. Reststement (Thlird) of Froperty

27' In inteqpreiing expressly

intendi-il#il;;Tis;

rn order to detemiue the meating of ambiguor+s tenns, the fhet fiader ma5, eonsider extnnsie evid*nee ofthe language and-condust of thE parties a:rd eireu:nstariees surroundirtg the pgreement, as well as ornl e"ia*n** oi*rr* e"oi*s, intent. Mark v v, Mellekas, I gg3-I{MSe-001.

2&'

2g' If the court finds

faet.

ambiguify, th* ambiguiry must be E/v recolved ru+r as afl issue of ultirnate

30'

eontextual u:rderstanding is neecssary to eonskrc re.sft"ietive eovcnants in a ma;rner

E0n.si.stenlvlitlrtheinientandexpeetationoftlrepartres.Exhhsit]evidelr.eeisadflisgiblc

toexBlainorclariff.butnltjovafyof-""o-,1r,''aregtrietiveaovefi&nf$tenng.Ll.R

lGd"ttv

quoted' in Agua

Fria'

thar eourts Fr ia court eonph'rded Agua the progeny' its and the Ferrsuant to C'R' furthony 3 indeten'ninturg whctlrer -q * t"-t*-r dispure tegarding are not obligated i, corenast ranguage of a restncH"e s meaning^ AguaFria' the restrietivc coven;nf

t.

-ttt#-'* ::*;fi#*tti* #"ilH;;";;ft;i*I

ucrurt s'uulll 32-TlroCourtnotest]reAguaFriaCoufididnote_seludetlre,,freeuse..n.i.[eof is rrut abur-rluLr ar^l the o*r;*t;i;;t st.l"t fiat *o'structio,rrrot i;ioui*,r -r oboionsporpose of the restiiction-c' i";-rrt d*f.#ilappry it strictry ,,

rrol

ffi; ;;;rd

FII$TORY OzuGINAL COVET\IANTS 'AND

33.Theoriginalcovenantswereimplementedlg72bylhoDeveloperwiththestated portions' the rich qualities uoJ?*u*top*A r**n*Oj* o*rl proper* witi:in purpo$* of perpetuating, td;;;;'fti"f enviro*o*nt'ioi ^'i;d;quite at $attaFe' In'c' narticutar ro ure pastorii Eldotado -i"r-O *ith 'f''"t the environment'" tho Eldorado ,*"il-"il;

$;;;;;*t*

*oileoufager

ronnJr*Jv*{looioio*il;;;;;*itttio

,}1*h,o were restrictive in rrature intlicate lrrnguage plain the 34. Tlre urigirral r;t-lvtjllunt$, uo'uao nt Sutrt" fu' Inc' fbt 'm*ual *ooi,"**tltll?gt plaee thcreon cer*aiu proteefive ancl intended a eontrolled to dcsircs . putolraso,, of Io,* ' ' benefrt nnd anjoyrncnt of and occupaney thereof'" us ts the -;ili;;ns *d "L restrictions covenants, buildffi
35.The$utdivisionwasdesignedinthelg70sbyt}:eoriginalduu*Igry'asamiddle in the late 1970s the ir*ia#irf **UAi"iti"o' Siutti"g pa*qs.e

and

*pper-*iddl;;l;*,

subdivisioo

I"r.*l"*n "oitt' Conkling Affrdavit'

**-*utJ**J

uv trr*

*-rd;ild-* of homcs in the developmenr

as a

.
;'rntit""t*ral

.J_ _

r^.- lc

of the Etdorado comnrunity 36.Ae.Eldoraclodeveloped.ateputationasasolafeommuniryinthelatelg70sand ton*ug*t conr'rijlg orrorulr, in*irioo Comr:nittee' nrernber of 1gg0s it was ,r", m*

tsdfr,;';T!-fhomes ot ilA*udo between 1978 zurd tmprovement 300 builderand aerive ritrere rhet the Eoard of Di-rectors "ilo*' of any oth*.r h*m.builder trrr-intention n* io it tgg5) nor did *omrnumty irr whieh domestic would- fo**o"i** be +r would "g'inottuJ Eltlarsclo Csnklinc AtTidavit" livestock

ffi;#;;;ro*,

h_;;;

oo"f;Gl

'*J

and 37'DuringMr'Conklirrg'sseventeenyearinvolvenrenfwith'Eldorado'andparticularly Cornmittee, it *u' his understanding Ed-,Aer*rrii**#ur ;;1" d*ring trls time cierm "reeognized household in *h*'ilffi;"ib/ *-t tu-t' intcrpretarion fur or tlre tlat belief dog* and cats that wete k"ept allowed l1*3,u* pets,, in ttn* *o**u'ot* *t "rtou*ttokl'' Conkling AfEdavil

*d;;;-e*

about

trr*,'ujl"*i'

TIIE AME}{DEE COVENA}ITS.

38' The nrajority of the vcting owneJl
,qeetio";ii ' Seetion 11. Ttre elear purptlse of utJ*t Ut* axoeptioir that is now i:n dispute' perntitted birds or poultry exeepltlrose

in 1995 adopting passed th,e Ameildcd. Covenalts animals" ffoot-ttotd Fets' is to exel*de all

39.

betvreen the ilhdivision's properiy Resfuiotive covenants sonstitute a eotthaot NMCA 126' owners. fuagon v' $xswn 2003 lot individual the und whole a as owlers

40.

of have beert used to assure unr'fon:ri$ Historiea.lly reetrietive eovenants s'xr s-$ea giva tho o"vner$ of lots within sueh *ns* of a resi.dential atea to daveloprnent (L970)' "nd Moirtoyav Barreras 8l NM 749 some degree of envirCI-nmental stability' to of Direetor's i5 " ---elflPowereel 4J.; Under tlre.Amended Covenants the ECIA Bc'ard anel guiclelines.forthe interpretation, adopt and enf,Jrceu}|n-; iule$, r*g.tlution* n-rt-teiDcelaration and tlre exeroise af the implernenratioo *J "i*tir *rti*rt shatl be consistentwirh this Restated Eoatd.s powens *a +Gio hereunder,

*J";r#

Declarelioil."
I

IISTOR-ICAL TIRACTICE

Each the covenantc t{} evclurle chickene42- TheEcrA has histofically enf'otced enforcement tlre mmoval of tJre chipketrs, Tlre onforcentent case was reso]'ved witlr Durine his aciion' ,.* B*r* oi that on-going entbrcennent aBtions a.gainst the Dsferdants f"f*"ueer' Williarn Do'ohue is not G"*tif fuf*ug*t Facilitie, as 1996 since renure chiekens whieh did not result in awafe of any eomplaints or violatian*nioi*u**nt action. Donohue Affrdavit'

;; t***l"g

43.TheECIRenforeemenracrion$haveincl.udedexcluslon.tlfcltjckens,vafiances,and. astayofenforeementaetiviticstoavoidinfluencingacovenantgelection.

M.

At

lagt one eovenant enfotcemenl

covef:afl.ts unleee

,u*r* "o*pl*io;. *ti*af smaller than indicated informally his view trr*t qw aceeptabte- Siegat and Minor Affrdavits

i#*

('fficff h'as in'tlicatecl that he did not enforee ni.*y Affrdalr At len-et one ECIA dit+ctot
a largc dog sould be

with lrcr notes wa"$ iepofied-by shelia cowine 45. An ECIA Board Mecting in 1999 indieates pu*" *u' Uiing disaussed then' Her artiele oii"'lrousJhold ir..** * tt in,Jieating in the ter'rn 'hOusehold

th#

t;i"f;t; pout"lUniti*g inherent the aep*na upou whethet or not *ii"pffity puu spceitrc of pets, aeeeptabitity in the Sirbdivision have harl
she understood tlrat''*Beeaur-

effid;;ii. Some t neighbors ,rn ptiin:,to*irrg AflidaviL' ,;hir:heffi fc;r i0 u""u'* y**i' Weste'r

o**o#*rs

pets 46-AeeordirrgtoJorrDeligans,nnECIAbo*d*:T.bjr,bcttvecnNlaythtnrughthecnd rlue to the fract that the was c?nceffied the controversy EcrA snme 20r2,the anrl side of oetober tt,n,,g'rt it t-ss cleai- nn one crearcovenant rneaningwac not

il;;;;i*

eleciion' pepFlethougfuttheoppasite.Tlleloardwasgar.efulnot-rltnltcaBositlcn..Eeligans ineluded the covenants

Affifuvit. rrr* c"#.*"t*u

rrr**nou

ti**

il*-

;-i reeognizer$ household 47'TheEC]A,shistoficalirlt*rprretationofthcteffn".r.ecoe&ized}rouselroldpets'.inthe poulw{r"*u'*'l*;;i-ffi thar l*;)'.*T6ere has hlcen iro $ubdivision has been C-"-.["i-' Ft$ohue Aff,rdavit'
uets and nor p-*io-4]*A-, has ever ividense presented lhat EC'A
aTe

;;-*i"*1

pets" ehiekens as househo**

"**r* 4s.Consequently*[eECTA,$hi$toliEalirrtcqpretioniseonsisteEitwiththeirqutlen[ urit'in the eovenant? s ffieening' *il*t*nded ctriekJn=c that position
P}IENOMENON BACKYARD FOULTRV NE'W
regulatory pulposes a3 rc1.e.:nnrental vett:rinary.and for *i*ulu" Foulny hap 49' Chigkenhens are categotizeel refen'ed to ry agricultural arefyBic+Ily poultry''and. household pets sr'rch as "livestoek xs6 Affrdavit. nor hisrofieally becn Lonsidsfed r" *gti*?ilXianimals- FaHlonia dogs and *utu, **ilir*eutut*A

,,h*nu:ilfi;;#i*

"l-*nat

antaFeCoun$'New&{exicaAnfuualtcnffolordinarree,inelrrdingboth thel991{-Jtdinancethatiscurrenflyi--rr--.,andtlaeg*e**oZ4[3arr:endmentsboth iivestock'

50.Tha,

pouttry define ehiekeus and other

*;;;til

to 51.^Thepractieeofrnaintainingbae}ryardp*qryhlslre,eomeasignifi.eanlphcnonrsnon aeoompli+hed by amond:nente rras !.++1 fa'm orily sineci tlr* *ii-boo's, *nd,ivhen;;##, pouttq.to be kepr in areas where offo* lo ordinaneJs municipal or oounty zoning snimnls,i,og'i*';;';ild"'*"thu#--pt"rt1t''r*d-'thesernningordinaneesmay utld $pe o'f poultry that *tll:_n*.b*r q,nnuuri#;ittiand have not sirnply require a speeiat pennit These ryy:* fondrueuts thluse. regulate Affidavit' ."rro-oser,ora ean be kept, ar:cl otherwise iets*. Fabilonia poulty -1 n-*ri*r*il
reclassifled baekyard

51'.$cientifi.csufir+Yilcen,df,lctedbfDr.Fabiloni.a,oftheownef$crfbackyadpouitfy
ahiekens haveglrownthatange"/o*uj*,jry"1"ili'*-*""'J't{echickelr.$a$asslJ{eeoff(tod' *,ir;Eriy.oIrh; owners rnaintain'utrc while nl'o*** foi eggs mear or "J;';;il" FabiloniaAffidavit -il;tnUy anim"rs es pets, conipi-t-,

33.Cgneequently,tlrcevidenceildicatesthateldckerrseouldnothavebeenint+rr.ded ti** gt* L972 Covenents and n*t* 4t1t* of "teeogfli't-d?;;;h.1d within 6ru ***oiog trave nothistorieatly been .!$ekens the lgg' Ainended Covenanrs -r-rrr-r-* o*uru clo n*t ecnsirtrer their *d,hJffiilrt*n pets oou*uord eonsidered, ,u t

**-if,}*;*fu.

ehiskens as Petn'

THE C$VEI'I AFIT ELECTION "

54.[nZ0l3,theHt]lAeorrducted.anelection.toamendi$ecovenantsfotavaricryof can have ehieketrs on drEir no*5o**o*t'*'-U o' wtretner fea'ons ineludingto '"elariff

1T:-3

-dtober t'

201 2'

b1-T::-*

55 '4vp to

inenrbers

of

+:'6%i'h:'ho*uo*er

rfsif; f t#-tJi,*Iffi,ffi

':tr-#$$ffi111*;il;;r".Ilvinetudedchickens
pets'

S6.Conscqu.ently,theevidenee.{r{catesthattheTEo:",,g."fvotinghanreowtrefsattlre -ou-u#L- tl*ctrrzed horiserrolds *" subdivisio"

.-ri-i*"--*

THE P'ARTIE''$, INTERFRETATTTJN$' ANALYSI$ OF

57

Li,d,"odp"dt'.XliitE;t"*q..ff *1ffi#,*ili;ilHil*-)insid'eoioutsicle

interpretetiou carrying tlre defendanrs'

to a losic*Xil-*-Llli#ff-TH#xtJht

il*[i*.,"**lty;,*SHlt':':H;?'-"";;theotherovners
:l"Hi:fi H-'J'il:ltf;* a rhisirrterpretatlonwoutdme$t|atindividualtryT"lffi uird or iroultry tn *i*ur' oi disoretion to tt*'J *ij"i
Subdivision'

58.Trreplaintiffsclaimthat:?hiek:nsarenorhourytr"lleetsbrylls*Eg.H"thenraionty "ni*r'** :::u *", -uv ao n31 r"yo -* oy

qa 11-, of Erdorado n" #1"* i'i-"41q **,*',,o, T;ni#-0"1u't*t uets, they El Dorado bv the E*IA *ri"*"Jin bc.* not iravc that tlre c$vena uv ilfucated orirners ;; ;;;'i' g ol "ho''sehol d Pets"

[i#

*'*o*o

*ioiv;y

-:lff"tn*?#;H51'Y-ffJ. ***;;;ffii '' incrud* ehiekens within

FRECENENT NON'Ffi'TDING) RELEV ANT I"EG,{I'

and deteilnined 59.WhilenotbindingauthoriV,tlresuperio'.9o",o]nthe$tateofPennsylvania tl tr'i* io "tutt*t 'i*il* addressing arestristivs*.r*rr*t, " '#* ****:j:-:l1"Jl.d'*1'll',?::$ll"Jl*'rnoouetrotdpetfr;"r *oJn;i: ebiekess go*k Hitl Falls v' Clifford I

that

tl,e 2002).

restrictiv;il-;il;'

g* I$ I'J]\ICLEAR' *RE CO GNIZED I{OUSEI{OLD PE'T 60.AsubstarrtialnrrinberofhorneownersandpersDnsassoeiatedwiththeE,trdorado of the coveRant language m *1d"g for disagreed uu* t P* govenaflts and ar.e not Subdivisioo "C""t pets', are not dJfi.ned i-n the h*'i;;H 'recognited issuc. The termg c.lear oR th-eir froe.

i-*t

lN'r'H,N'

l' AND

!ll.J

ltPutiHi

61. The evidenei: indieates thet at the time the 1.972 Coveirarts anel 1995 Ancnded ;;"-;;; *=r* i,opt***Ifed chrekeils wcrc not consldered to bc krousehold pcts aird

pets"' eould not have been intended witlrjn the meanirrg of I recogni'zed household that ehiekeus are lrot The Flaintiff.s experi wilness has presented affidavit evidenee roo*iA-i-O pets by the majority of persons who own chickens' Further, baekyard past ten years" Iivestock (ineluding poul.try) is a recent oceurnce in general during flrc as This signiiieantly inOieates that inbmatler socies ehicksns are not reeogrized household pets bY most.

62. Histoncally elriekens have not been eonsirjered reeognizcd household ECIA anrl rJrey iave historicaily talien enforcement aetioir against indiviqlual
have had chickens on theirpropefly-

pets by tltc

oviners who

63. While there is no evi.dence tlrat ECIA

pets"

statedthat at timea. Speoificaltyif) *A ECIA Covcnant enfcrecmcnt offteerhas not be a conrplaint. he did not always iake action 0n oovenant violations where tlrere had on their ehickens keep to t*o owners the ECIA allowed the owners to "if*ui, on under a variance for the lives of ilre chickens . En'lbrcement was also stayed integriff thc presei-vE to (lxoperly proceas chieken violations dudng th.e covegaut election

The

has ever eonsidered ohiokens as lrousehold hac Defendant's have presented ail-iclavit evlelence flrat enfrrcement action

u*i*a

(?);;

n***t

of the electiort).
have been 64" .Thete is not historie cvidence that chicken$ ot other livestock the ECIA as atlowable in the Eldorado subdivieion'
aceepterl by

;;

65. The covenant eleetiort while

nnt hincling for changing, aovenant, hesaltse ne:ther of is signifieant in indicating tlat the fip-;ed versions received over 50% of the vote, voted not io inelude c'hiekeffi nrejbriry of the voting horncowireffi in Eldorado subdivrsion language' iftu rneaning o?*household pets" under the covenant

*iiii"
66.

aud umforurity in The intent of the covenants is protection of the ovireffi of Bldorado properly rigbt a$d a eontraet the uses of their properly. The eovcflantg are an important betwccn *rc humeuwners itnd the individual ownff'

67. The ECLA is sn eleeted body which i+ charged with the covenantgonbehalfoftheEldoradoowl}crs.Neeessarily,theECIAruustinterprettlre ent.orcing' eovenantc which fhey are char'ged with

duty of enlbreing thc

68. ,Althougjr
"f

should be oonstmed in favor the general rule is that tesf ictive coveflallts in ileis case would de'&at the intent aud of the free use of properff, ahist *nut*ttion prr*"t- the eovena$ts aflcl result in an illagieal resull

by is i-rrconsistent wiflrthe uzufor:niry eontemplatcd Tlre Defe'clant's interpretation purposes with the restrietive covenant ,tot*O theiein and ineonsistent the eovenanr, "* recognized bY taw'

69.

t*.ry***llffffi
:.JJHjllHlT'lilaspets'
.,::..i.{rrer orrrrlr$eonrplereu--t1*-*XTffill

{*rsrugruug**s*q:mgrug*gw
w iubu,uto*t theY

HIJ it o'eanirrsl'e's's'

Etdorado .^,t*rleretv subjecr tho

a:ytfii}#r,

this is

iz*,**:T'HH#J,f-t:'*ffi iffil--lxT"-i}}itr'l'H:f4iffi""

T-[#JHl#*t'+*#*s*s'us'ul;:
ontcr

their Proi

u,o**in*'d;frij$J*{fg:ntff$i'iJ':iH'*
:::HHfi:.::trlH-,il#;;Hi#Jft-frEl11i:, T:'::":,s'ncrprc,*f It would b uffea'o"**
-r--i"er.-sstight tn'kl'sF*i,,]i- ""i#r, tlrl ::t household t*"Ut"zed by hunhridlecl unilnieml

"ntr#.ffi
other
T

* r*i, p*r. irtt*

$:l-iffi*{riltrF,Hn1nfl1f+iliff li}f
#+ittrotrt recourse'

fl$lllni-,-.
-

*n*:t;*,ffi*l,T-'l;;;t;ertrreeovenzurts(exeeptn*iszu f*frf t

j. consistenr wirh ih6 hi sr*ri eal praotiee

"**ffit*

in *

:m-rff'nffiT#T:;itfi--ilf

f#:'#-iillH*''ffi ff;i[fi",-l''-ilTlT:::l'-%;;o;;**o***u"aiveleuted
clirectors' an* T6.Insummary,tlreDefendants,inlerpretationisineongistentwiththeirrtentffid ul* *oJ** rule of corrstructirm *lr** *oo*our.t* prffposes oitt * "*Jrrla ".a-1 *ut'u*a under tlre general rule of results ur foreseeabie eonstnrction'

illogieal;;rrffi;t*i,

TT.Baseduponthecons,flletionoftheeoveftsnttefms,thetavran.eltheurrdisputed.faets eoncl*des that ib, so,r*r*ry Judgment this court *orrfr parties both in subm.:r.fied not reeognized' as
chickens are not
o,reeognized

lt""r-it"io

pets", beeaose they are

and/orthe ECLA aeting on ihek be&alf and lrorrsehciel pets by the Eldcrado comrn-r-rnity ag'"reeogrizcei ltougehold pets" uird*r the historieally ohiorrens ri.ave never rreen intended cuveirirll$. SUMMA-RY JUDGMENT'

7S. sumnaerry judgm.ent is approptiaf where the-rs a{s no judgmenl as a matter gf law. Romero v' Ftrillip Morris' ln'o" and t]re illovnilt is cntitled to 2010NMSC-035-

genurno issues 0f ilratsrial fuut

79. The court,

judgrment tngether ivith the after ctnsidcring the rnotious for sumnrary axe ilo genutt:e isrues of material faet affaehed affidavits and exhibits concludes that flrere

*d u,t*tuty
80.

judgment f.orthe Plaintiffis appropriate'

the law and the undisputed Eased upou the eonstruetion of fhe eovenant teflns, .mcts sugffiitred in both parties motions for Srnrnmary Judgment this Coutt material pets"'under thc eonEludes that ehj.okens and roosters are n,ot "reoogrjzedheusehold subdivision be hcpt urmaintained on any tot in rtrs eov-enants *na rouy,

"ot

El.

from breaching tlrs Thc Defendants afe pernranently re.+hoined and c4ioined to remove their ehiekens ftom their Covenantg for the Subdiuision anel eaoh are requited

;#;i;

p,*p*,tie,"
be

g2, It is fhi.r and just, under the eircutnstanees of this case that the Defendanls 2014), to conre into allowed u r**"nuil*il11r1 of time (until September 30, 83. Both sides shall bear their orvn sosts and fees' 84.

agreed by the Farties' compliance by removing their ehickens unless otlrerwise

siftmit it to me f'or signatme The Plaintiffis requested to pr's,pate tlre f,rnal order and recold on or by thc Dcfendant. Tliis letter will bs fileq1 iuto the after approval aE '" about Ap:il 18th" 2014.

ltt*

I sincerery appreeiatc
tlre headngs
i-n

the profession.arism disprayed by

ail counsel and their elients during

this case, Sineercly,

DI$TF,ICT JUDOE PRO TEM