['

},/!ARKA" esAeARr:p}{

E3gSTRECT' CG[JF.{T .N€JB 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"

vAH AMBtrRfi? XIOGERB' YEPA'

ABEN'A & GOMEZ, LLP

F.O. Eox 14a7

Sant*Fe, New Mexiso 87504'1477

Re: Eldorado Comnruniry Improvenrent Assoeiation, Ine' vs' Susan Eillings' et al' Case

Nunrber D-0101-CV.20 n-AnSn in {he First Judicial Distu'iet Court in ihc State of New

Mexico,

Dear Corrlrsel,

This letter oonteins my deeisicn on drc Sutnmaty Judgmcnt Motians frled by both parties

in this case, I artivJatmy decision to grant the Ftainii{frl,Motion f'ar $umff'afy

.lr6gnlent otrly after "o*pLr1,'g

a th""orTgh review and delil-reration of the l+w and the

partie+' rnoti.ons" **liUit*, affraavits #"l"gul atgumert'. I have detailedthe feasons'fof

my decirion betow. i sincerely appreciate f,avine the time to thorcughly csnsidet tlLe

issucs Presented-

,SUMMARY OF' NSSIJESI,.

1 . Tire Parties have ea-eh takeil riifferent intelpretations of the Eldorado at $anta Fa

Subdivigion.,s reshietive eovenants. T-he restrictive cOvstlant in issue provides that *'No

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

2. Eoth Far'ries:hi.ave subminedMotions for $urnrnary Judgment to-the Court,arguing

Ot" if-- r"*-rf-f faets lili&is ease are unelispute4 and tle Cc'rt shnuld' enter a decisinn se

a malter of lavr.

K. StephenRoYee, Esq"

ARJ,AND & A"SSOCIATES, LLC

201 Third gt. NW, Ste. 505

;\lbuqu-erque, t.TM S71 02

COVEI\IAI{TS"

lonmuniry Imptovement Associatron ('"ECLA ) is aNevr h{exioc'

nonpro{ir coryoffi#;;;J?La *rra d"r.s;;;*- "r4*t1* laws of the $tate of New

Mexiso, and is t'r-;;;""*";;;' **r*i"tflffit tf'- gi*-tado at Santa Fe eubdivision

lqcateql in Santa f- il"*ry' New Mexieo (the '"Subdivision'")'

4. As a non-profit eorporation' the ECIA is glY1-ttlits Eoard of Direstorc- The

EciA is not a rounicipali.ty or other governrnental or quasi-governrirental entiiy'

S.TheECIAiechatgcdwi.thcrrforeingtheAmlnde{arrdRestatedFr'otectiveCovenantsanrl Buildine n*firi;i; r* etao*do"ut s*tu Fe' wlrioh are resorded in the rEeords of

Sanra p'u llqr.rfrty, N;;il;o ("the C.-"."*itf fot the bene'fit and proteetion of all

Eldorado residents'

6.TlreoriginaldeveloperofEldoradoatSairtaFein,l.gTladoptedandreeordcdproteetive Coo*o#* *? g*fAhg n**tr1*tioos for Eldorado at Santa Fe' as a general

;;#;,; pl* f;iJ*eropme:nt of the subdivisiott"

7, T.hc covenants were adopted by avote of the majonty of the (Jwners of the lots in

the Subdivision in 1995'

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

Sgetionll.HouselroldPets.Noanimals.birdsorpo4qslrallbekeptormedntainedonariy lot, except'# gti;; rtt.*r*ra e# tl* *'"y b--k-pt thereon in reasonable

nunrbem as pds for the pleasure unlt rile of the oecupants but not for any commercial use

or purpose. r, i*iil'uiJi*' io p*ooit 4!;ii;*'- 1{g:"* Eldorado' At all times' dogs

nrust be kept, resirainJ *A ,lrrt otled 6y thoit qwners in the illanner deseribed in the

$anta Fe Caunqy Aniffial Confiol Ordinanoe'

g,Tlrefusl,ssnluncerrfthiscoveuanthasbeenpartrrfrhecovef,alrtssinoelgTZ.

l0.Thedefendantsaroeachtegidentialprope{oY:**inthcEld.oradosubdivisionatSanta Fe located irt ,$anta Fe, New nn--ifo" nu*n of these resielential properties is strtrject

to the flovenant'q

1i. The Def.endaurts eaeh own ehickens tltat are houscd and eared for on their respective

properties. It i*';;;irp;a tH* *ti'ti.-"-'- ;;OouttW*" There are no allegations that the

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

12. In tlie conrplaint, th.e Flalntiffraises no a'lleged covenant violations' suoh as

nuisanees, orrvilut iL* DetbnclanB trraintain chiehens anel t}iar undEr the eoveDantg" no

chickens ,*n* *u,i:rt"io*d vrithin the tsidor.ado $ubdivision''

13. .Ihe Defendants admitthat trrry ea$i1ct rrainLuir rsosteffi trecause tb,er' arc a nuisanee

because of theit noise'

THE FARTIES' INTERPETATION $ OF TH"E COVEH-'4NT'

L4.ttisundisputedtlratthedefendarr,LshavetakenxhepositlonthaJa|Igltlmals'birdsnnd

il-,;,;;;**rtyitin";n*;;y*l;5:Ht[';"*:lltli'*:fl-ffi1?ceunderreuognizcs suclr atrJ

tlre sovenant Provisions)'

The Defendants, Interrogatory Answers eontain the follow'urg fesponse:

*. A household is a groun af persons,.iii"* t.,i--aer in a *eJict*-'ntial seftiog' I-Inder

the eovenants, ,**o'g-ri*Ld ]rouseholp 9u*u ,,-* thouu p*1**on*zed by t1e household'

rt is the rro**uor+ firiiJ;rtf; *h* "#

;-;- ** J"O, in tt'Jcase of Defendauts' thev

'#;;";p"r*a trt*it ehiekens as pet$'"

l5.Consequently,itisundispu':qqT*nuDefendants'lyyetakentlropositionttratchickerrs are a[oweJ as househola rr*

"n"**ilt-- tr# *'itnl* u'* t**ognized by theit

lrr-r r-rsehol d$'+s Pets'

16.IligundisputeelthatthePinintiff*(ECIA)intcrprotationisthatelriekEnsaf,enot.,reecgnizcd h".*.Toil;-*r" *rtrr'- d;;i"g of tfie Eldsfadtr" $ covenants'

|7,Specifrcal$theFlaintiffeontendsthat(a)theoovenantsrurarnbigul}slJ.excludeehickens '" '**J'tl*J

t'o*tl'oq q{; ;J r'uj even -if tlte oovenant provi'ron rE

atnlriguous, rrr- riliiCi-,r *"u-.1;1r""**'tlish the ***ittg of the disputed temrs

as ehickens are nott*t'ogui"*d housahold pets'

lB.Consequent$,itisurrdisputedtharttreFlaintiffhastakenlhepositiontlratclriekensarenotaltowed#i'u**noro-p*eu*t;'il*iin*'trr*.nr'oo'uooeommunitynorbroad*rft -W recognir'o ehiokens as household' Ber*'

A.PFLICABLE LAW.

19. The courL i.s first required to detennine iflthe covenant language is ambiguons'

20. Just beeause two parties interpret the }anguage or a covenant ditTerently does *ot

meal] the eovenanr is ambiguous. i;;;fiil **J u::: eonsider whethetboth

i-nteqptetatlo** #t-*-na6le in the centext of the ease'

2l.Amhigurffegj.stswheuawordorphtaseissuseeptibletotwoorlnolemcanings.whether ambiguiry exisrs i* u quur#J;;l;;r t*-au*iaiog wheths a covenan"t is

arnbigucus **:to*i. at the doerrm;;;; a whqle' S"U"tinii' Roybal Z't '-NMCA-086"

22.Con'rextualurxdeGtandiflgi*.-*:::,*-'ytoconctnrtrrestrietivesftvsSant$inamarurerecnsistent wltlrtire-intent uo-:' **p*'*titfl'Jo'ri'ilu-*-" e.#t*evidenoe is adffiissible

ro exptai* ,, *l*iff, but nnt to v1:q. *, ;*d-di-i * t?181* eovera*t's terfll*q' Agus

Fria save the CIpen $tr "**

Assoeiarion;. d,*ilAot t+qh[ca-054' 149 NivI 812'

23. In dctenni*ing wlretJrer a term or expression to whieh the paftfenfrave agre*el in

unelear', a goilrt may hear cvidenee of the eireuntstAneeg Sufl'ounding the nAAHlng Oi thc

eontraet a:rd of any relevent u5flgc of ft'ade, eourse of dealing and eO*rse Of'peff'Ofmanee-

Agua Frta'

?4, I{e*tnetive covrilants must bs Eensidcr*d rea-:orlably, though sfictlyaud an illogical,unnatural, or strained eonsfruetion must be avoided. We will not read rcstrietions on theuse afld enjoyment of the land irrto the cavenant by implication arrd rve rnust give wor&rin the resfristive eovenant their ordinary and intended rn*animg. ,kr eonstrruing aBrotebtive covefifffit*.a court is to gxve effeet to flre intention of the parties as showf,. by U:elamguage of the whole inshl$nent, {:onsidered with flre cir.cumstance$ $wrCIurding therransaotion, and the

"_bjl-l-qlta! Farfies in making the restrietions. Agua Frta citfuigMontova v Barreras, 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)^

25' 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'strestrictions'' At t{e sarne titne the $upreme court has instruetsd that the nrle of stricteonetruetion muet be eubordinate to the.intefltio*.f *h$;ies r{s refla*ted by thelanguage of the whox,e instlunent" the cireurirstances s#ounding the t'ansaetionu and thepurposes eniraating the restrietions. Agua Fria.

26' The general ruji ttrlt ambiguities ooneerning resh'ietive covenants should beresolved iru favar ofthe free enjiinrnent and ug;;;t *ud*ii*n*, but thjs rule cannot i:e

fJ,*-FJidErbat the obvious purpo$* of the rJstu'isrions, rh-;#ffi;ffi-E soveirr.

27' In inteqpreiing expressly treated seryitudcs, the expressed iutenrion of the partiee is3f

primarv imlortanec. Thelr intendi-il#il;;Tis; of alt of the eircumsranees.Reststement (Thlird) of Froperty

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

2g' If the court finds ambiguify, th* ambiguiry must be recolved as afl issue of ultirnatefaet. E/v ru+r

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

E0n.si.stenlvlitlrtheinientandexpeetationoftlrepartres.Exhhsit]evidelr.eeisadflisgiblctoexBlainorclariff.butnltjovafyof-""o-,1r,''aregtrietiveaovefi&nf$tenng.Ll.RlGd"ttv quoted' in Agua Fria'

ia court eonph'rded thar eourts

3 t. Ferrsuant to C'R' furthony and its progeny' the Agua Fr

are not obligated -q -ttt#-'* ::*;fi#*tti*

indeten'ninturg whctlrer the

ranguage of a restncH"e corenast i, #"ilH;;";;ft;i*I * t"-t*-r dispure tegarding

the restrietivc coven;nf s meaning^ AguaFria'

32-TlroCourtnotest]reAguaFriaCoufididnote_seludetlre,,freeuse..n.i.[eof*o'structio,rrrot i;ioui*,r fiat st.l"t o*r;*t;i;;t is rrut abur-rluLr ar^l the ucrurt s'uulll rrol

appry it strictry ,, ffi; ;;;rd d*f.#il- i";-rrt -r oboionsporpose of the restiiction-c'

OzuGINAL COVET\IANTS 'AND FII$TORY

33.Theoriginalcovenantswereimplementedlg72bylhoDeveloperwiththestatedpurpo$* of perpetuating, o*rl r**n*Oj* uoJ?*u*top*A portions' the rich qualities

narticutar ro ure pastorii enviro*o*nt'ioi td;;;;'fti"f ^'i;d;quite proper* witi:in

tho Eldorado ,*"il-"il; -i"r-O *ith $;;;;;*t* 'f''"t

Eldotado at $attaFe' In'c'

*oileoufager ronnJr*Jv*{looioio*il;;;;;*itttio the environment'"

34. Tlre urigirral r;t-lvtjllunt$, plain lrrnguage intlicate ,}1*h,o were restrictive in rrature

ancl intended a eontrolled *ooi,"**tltll?gt uo'uao nt Sutrt" fu' Inc' fbt the 'm*ual

benefrt nnd anjoyrncnt of putolraso,,

-

of Io,* ' . ' dcsircs to plaee thcreon cer*aiu proteefive

covenants, buildffi restrictions *d -;ili;;ns us ts the "L and occupaney thereof'"

35.The$utdivisionwasdesignedinthelg70sbyt}:eoriginalduu*Igry'asamiddleand *pper-*iddl;;l;*, ir*ia#irf **UAi"iti"o' Siutti"g in the late 1970s the

subdivisioo **-*utJ**J uv trr* *-rd;ild-* of homcs in the developmenr as a pa*qs.e

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

. .J_ _ r^.- lc

36.Ae.Eldoraclodeveloped.ateputationasasolafeommuniryinthelatelg70sand1gg0s it was ,r", m* in*irioo orrorulr, conr'rijlg ton*ug*t of the Etdorado comnrunity

tmprovement ffi;#;;;ro*, tsdfr,;';T!-f ;'rntit""t*ral Comr:nittee' nrernber of

the Eoard of Di-rectors and builder- "ilo*' 300 homes ot ilA*udo between 1978 zurd

tgg5) nor did h_;;; it io n* trrr-intention of any oth*.r h*m.builder aerive ritrere rhet

Eltlarsclo would be +r would- fo**o"i** '*J "g'inottuJ *omrnumty irr whieh domestic

livestock oo"f;Gl Csnklinc AtTidavit"

37'DuringMr'Conklirrg'sseventeenyearinvolvenrenfwith'Eldorado'andparticularlyd*ring trls time ;;1" Ed-,Aer*rrii**#ur Cornmittee, it *u' his understanding and

belief tlat tlre intcrpretarion in *h*'ilffi;"ib/ *-t tu-t' cierm "reeognized household

pets,, in ttn* *o**u'ot* allowed *d;;;-e* l1*3,u* dog* and cats that wete k"ept fur or

about trr*,'ujl"*i' *t "rtou*ttokl'' Conkling AfEdavil

TIIE AME}{DEE COVENA}ITS.

38' The nrajority of the vcting owneJl passed th,e Ameildcd. Covenalts in 1995 adopting

Seetion 11. Ttre elear purptlse of ,qeetio";ii ' ffoot-ttotd Fets' is to exel*de all animals"

birds or poultry exeepltlrose perntitted utJ*t Ut* axoeptioir that is now i:n dispute'

39. Resfuiotive covenants sonstitute a eotthaot betvreen the ilhdivision's properiy

owlers as a whole und the individual lot owners. fuagon v' $xswn 2003 NMCA 126'

40. Historiea.lly reetrietive eovenants have beert used to assure unr'fon:ri$ of

daveloprnent "nd *ns* of a resi.dential atea to giva tho o"vner$ of lots within sueh s'xr s-$ea

some degree of envirCI-nmental stability' Moirtoyav Barreras 8l NM 749 (L970)'

4J.; Under tlre.Amended Covenants the ECIA Bc'ard of Direetor's i5 " ---elflPowereel to

adopt and enf,Jrceu}|n-; iule$, r*g.tlution* anel guiclelines.forthe interpretation,

implernenratioo *J *J";r# "i*tir n-rt-teiDcelaration and tlre exeroise af the

Eoatd.s powens *a +Gio hereunder, *rti*rt shatl be consistentwirh this Restated

Declarelioil."

I IISTOR-ICAL TIRACTICE

42- TheEcrA has histofically enf'otced the covenantc t{} evclurle chickene- Each

onforcentent case was reso]'ved witlr tlre mmoval of tJre chipketrs, Tlre enforcement

aBtions a.gainst the Dsferdants ,.* B*r* oi that on-going entbrcennent aciion' Durine his

renure since 1996 as Facilitie, fuf*ug*t ;; G"*tif f"f*"ueer' Williarn Do'ohue is not

awafe of any eomplaints or violatian- t***l"g chiekens whieh did not result in

*nioi*u**nt action. Donohue Affrdavit'

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

M. At l€agt one eovenant enfotcemenl ('fficff h'as in'tlicatecl that he did not enforee

covef:afl.ts unleee i#* ,u*r* "o*pl*io;. ni.*y Affrdalr At len-et one ECIA dit+ctot

indicated informally his view trr*t qw *ti*af smaller than a largc dog sould be

aceeptabte- Siegat and Minor Affrdavits

45. An ECIA Board Mecting in 1999 wa"$ iepofied-by shelia cowine with lrcr notes

in,Jieating tt * ir..** oii"'lrousJhold pu*" *u' Uiing disaussed then' Her artiele indieates

th# she understood tlrat''*Beeaur- t;i"f;t; pout"lUniti*g inherent in the ter'rn 'hOusehold

pets, aeeeptabitity of spceitrc puu *ii"pffity aep*na upou whethet or not the

neighbors ,rn ptiin:,to*irrg effid;;ii. Some t o**o#*rs in the Sirbdivision have harl

,;hir:heffi fc;r i0 u""u'* y**i' Weste'r AflidaviL'

46-AeeordirrgtoJorrDeligans,nnECIAbo*d*:T.bjr,bcttvecnNlaythtnrughthecndof oetober 20r2,the EcrA was c?nceffied the controversy rlue to the fract that the pets

covenant rneaningwac not crear- il;;;;i* tt,n,,g'rt it t-ss cleai- nn one side anrl snme

pepFlethougfuttheoppasite.Tlleloardwasgar.efulnot-rltnltcaBositlcn..EeligansAffifuvit. rrr* c"#.*"t*u rrr**nou ti** il*- ineluded the covenants eleciion'

47'TheEC]A,shistoficalirlt*rprretationofthcteffn".r.ecoe&ized}rouselroldpets'.inthe$ubdivision has been thar poulw{r"*u'*'l*;;i-ffi l*;)'.*-

;-i reeognizer$ household

uets and aTe nor p-*io-4]*A-, G C-"-.["i-' Ft$ohue Aff,rdavit' T6ere has hlcen iro

ividense presented lhat EC'A has ever ;;-*i"*1 ehiekens as househo** pets"

4s.Consequently*[eECTA,$hi$toliEalirrtcqpretioniseonsisteEitwiththeirqutlen[position that ctriekJn=c

"**r* *il*t*nded urit'in the eovenant? s ffieening'

BACKYARD FOULTRV NE'W P}IENOMENON

49' Chigkenhens are categotizeel for vett:rinary.and rc1.e.:nnrental regulatory pulposes a3

"livestoek xs6 poultry''and. arefyBic+Ily refen'ed to ry agricultural *i*ulu" Foulny hap

nor hisrofieally becn Lonsidsfed ,,h*nu:ilfi;;#i*

"l-*nat household pets sr'rch as

dogs and *utu, **ilir*eutut*A r" *gti*?ilXianimals- FaHlonia Affrdavit.

50.Tha, antaFeCoun$'New&{exicaAnfuualtcnffolordinarree,inelrrdingboththel991{-Jtdinancethatiscurrenflyi--rr--.,andtlaeg*e**oZ4[3arr:endmentsbothdefine ehiekeus and other pouttry *;;;til iivestock'

51.^Thepractieeofrnaintainingbae}ryardp*qryhlslre,eomeasignifi.eanlphcnonrsnonorily sineci tlr* *ii-boo's, *nd,ivhen;;##, rras

!.++1 aeoompli+hed by amond:nente to

municipal or oounty zoning ordinaneJs lo offo* pouttq.to be kepr in areas where fa'm

snimnls,i,og'i*';;';ild"'*"thu#--pt"rt1t''r*d-'thesernningordinaneesmayrequire a speeiat pennit and q,nnuuri#;itti- *tll:_n*.b*r utld $pe o'f poultry that

ean be kept, ar:cl otherwise regulate thluse. These ryy:* fondrueuts have not sirnply

reclassifled baekyard poulty -1 n-*ri*r*il ."rro-oser,ora iets*. Fabilonia Affidavit'

51'.$cientifi.csufir+Yilcen,df,lctedbfDr.Fabiloni.a,oftheownef$crfbackyadpouitfyhaveglrownthatange"/o*uj*,jry"1"ili'*-*""'J't{echickelr.$a$asslJ{eeoff(tod'mear or eggs foi nl'o*** while "J;';;il"

*,ir;Eriy.oIrh; owners rnaintain'utrc ahiekens

es pets, conipi-t-, -il;tnUy anim"rs FabiloniaAffidavit

33.Cgneequently,tlrcevidenceildicatesthateldckerrseouldnothavebeenint+rr.dedwithin 6ru ***oiog of "teeogfli't-d?;;;h.1d n*t* 4t1t*

ti** gt* L972 Covenents and

the lgg' Ainended Covenanrs **-if,}*;*fu. .!$ekens trave nothistorieatly been

eonsidered, ,u t oou*uord pets *d,hJffiilrt*n -r-rrr-r-* o*uru clo n*t ecnsirtrer their

ehiskens as Petn'

THE C$VEI'I AFIT ELECTION "

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

1T:-3 -dtober t' 201 2' b1-T::-* 55 '4vp to +:'6%i'h:'ho*uo*er inenrbers of

rfsif; f t#-tJi,*Iffi,ffi ':tr-#$$ffi111*;il;;r".Ilvinetudedchickens

S6.Conscqu.ently,theevidenee.{r{catesthattheTEo:",,g."fvotinghanreowtrefsattlresubdivisio" *" .-ri-i*"--*

-ou-u#L- tl*ctrrzed horiserrolds pets'

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

57 . carrying tlre defendanrs' interpretetiou to a losic*Xil-*-Llli#ff-TH#xtJht

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

il*[i*.,"**lty;,*SHlt':':H;?'-"";;theotherovners

rhisirrterpretatlonwoutdme$t|atindividualtryT"lffi :l"Hi:fi H-'J'il:ltf;*

disoretion to tt*'J *ij"i oi *i*ur' uird or iroultry tn a

Subdivision'

58.Trreplaintiffsclaimthat:?hiek:nsarenorhourytr"lleetsbrylls*Eg.H"thenraiontyof Erdorado n" #1"* -* qa oy

11-, *", -uv ao n31 r"yo [i# "ni*r'** :::u

*'*o*o

uets, they **,*',,o, i'i-"41q I T;ni#-0"1u't*t -:lff"tn*?#;H51'Y-ffJ. ' 'iravc not bc.* *ri"*"Jin El Dorado bv the E*IA ***;;;ffii

incrud* ehiekens within

orirners uv *ioiv;y ilfucated that tlre c$vena

;; ;;;'i' g ol "ho''sehol d Pets" -

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

59.WhilenotbindingauthoriV,tlresuperio'.9o",o]nthe$tateofPennsylvaniaaddressing arestristivs*.r*rr*t, io

" '#* 'i*il* tl tr'i*

"tutt*t and deteilnined that

ebiekess *oJn;i: rnoouetrotdpetfr;"r **- **:j:-:l1"Jl.d'*1'll',?::$ll"Jl*'-tl,e restrictiv;il-;il;' go*k Hitl Falls v' Clifford I

2002).

*RE CO GNIZED I{OUSEI{OLD PE'T g* I$ I'J]\ICLEAR'

60.AsubstarrtialnrrinberofhorneownersandpersDnsassoeiatedwiththeE,trdoradoSubdivisioo t uu* disagreed for i-*t "C""t P*

*1d"g of the coveRant language m

issuc. The termg 'recognited h*'i;;H pets', are not dJfi.ned i-n the govenaflts and ar.e not

c.lear oR th-eir froe.

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

eould not have been intended witlrjn the meanirrg of I recogni'zed household pets"'

The Flaintiff.s experi wilness has presented affidavit evidenee that ehiekeus are lrot

roo*iA-i-O pets by the majority of persons who own chickens' Further, baekyard

Iivestock (ineluding poul.try) is a recent oceur€nce in general during flrc past ten years"

This signiiieantly inOieates that inbmatler socies ehicksns are not reeogrized as

household pets bY most.

62. Histoncally elriekens have not been eonsirjered reeognizcd household pets by tltc

ECIA anrl rJrey iave historicaily talien enforcement aetioir against indiviqlual oviners who

have had chickens on theirpropefly-

63. While there is no evi.dence tlrat ECIA has ever eonsidered ohiokens as lrousehold

pets" The Defendant's have presented ail-iclavit evlelence flrat enfrrcement action hac

u*i*a at timea. Speoificaltyif) *A ECIA Covcnant enfcrecmcnt offteerhas statedthat

he did not always iake action 0n oovenant violations where tlrere had not be a conrplaint.

(?);; to "if*ui,

t*o owners the ECIA allowed the owners to keep ehickens on their

n***t under a variance for the lives of ilre chickens . En'lbrcement was also stayed on

chieken violations dudng th.e covegaut election proceas (lxoperly to presei-vE thc integriff

of the electiort).

64" .Thete is not historie cvidence that chicken$ ot other livestock have been aceepterl by

the ECIA as atlowable in the Eldorado subdivieion'

65. The covenant eleetiort while nnt hincling for changing, aovenant, hesaltse ne:ther of

;; fip-;ed versions received over 50% of the vote, is signifieant in indicating tlat the

nrejbriry of the voting horncowireffi in Eldorado subdivrsion voted not io inelude c'hiekeffi

*iiii" iftu rneaning o?*household pets" under the covenant language'

66. The intent of the covenants is protection of the ovireffi of Bldorado aud umforurity in

the uses of their properly. The eovcflantg are an important properly rigbt a$d a eontraet

betwccn *rc humeuwners itnd the individual ownff'

67. The ECLA is sn eleeted body which i+ charged with the duty of enlbreing thc

covenantgonbehalfoftheEldoradoowl}crs.Neeessarily,theECIAruustinterprettlreeovenantc which fhey are char'ged with ent.orcing'

68. ,Althougjr the general rule is that tesf ictive coveflallts should be oonstmed in favor

of the free use of properff, ahist *nut*ttion in ileis case would de'&at the intent aud

prr*"t- "f

the eovena$ts aflcl result in an illagieal resull

69. Tlre Defe'clant's interpretation is i-rrconsistent wiflrthe uzufor:niry eontemplatcd by

the eovenanr, "*

,tot*O theiein and ineonsistent with the restrietive covenant purposes

recognized bY taw'

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

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

HIJ it o'eanirrsl'e's's' n .^,t*rleretv subjecr tho Etdorado 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'*

T:'::":,s'ncrprc,*f :::HHfi:.::trlH-,il#;;Hi#Jft-frEl11i:,-r--i"er.-ss- It would b€ uffea'o"**

""i#r, tlrl ::t h- household * r*i, p*r. irtt*unhridlecl unilnieml tight tn'kl'sF*i,,]i-

t*"Ut"zed by"ntr#.ffi $:l-iffi*{riltrF,Hn1nfl1f+iliff li}f fl$lllni-,-.

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

#+ittrotrt recourse'

T j. consistenr wirh ih6 hi sr*ri eal praotiee in * :m-rff'nffiT#T:;itfi--ilf -

- :f#:'#-iillH*''ffi ff;i[fi",-l''-ilTlT:::l'-%;;o;;**o***u"aiveleutedclirectors'

T6.Insummary,tlreDefendants,inlerpretationisineongistentwiththeirrtentffidprffposes oitt * *oo*our.t* *lr** "*Jrrla ".a-1

ul* *oJ** rule of corrstructirm an*

results ur foreseeabie illogieal;;rrffi;t*i, *ut'u*a under tlre general rule of

eonstnrction'

TT.Baseduponthecons,flletionoftheeoveftsnttefms,thetavran.eltheurrdisputed.faetssubm.:r.fied in both parties *orrfr ib, so,r*r*ry Judgment this court eoncl*des that

chickens are not o,reeognized lt""r-it"io pets", beeaose they are not reeognized' as

lrorrsehciel pets by the Eldcrado comrn-r-rnity and/orthe ECLA aeting on ihek be&alf and

historieally ohiorrens ri.ave never rreen intended ag'"reeogrizcei ltougehold pets" uird*r the

cuveirirll$.

SUMMA-RY JUDGMENT'

7S. sumnaerry judgm.ent is approptiaf€ where the-rs a{s no genurno issues 0f ilratsrial fuut

and t]re illovnilt is cntitled to judgmenl as a matter gf law. Romero v' Ftrillip Morris' ln'o"

2010NMSC-035-

79. The court, after ctnsidcring the rnotious for sumnrary judgrment tngether ivith the

affaehed affidavits and exhibits concludes that flrere axe ilo genutt:e isrues of material faet

*d u,t*tuty judgment f.orthe Plaintiffis appropriate'

80. Eased upou the eonstruetion of fhe eovenant teflns, the law and the undisputed

material .mcts sugffiitred in both parties motions for Srnrnmary Judgment this Coutt

eonEludes that ehj.okens and roosters are n,ot "reoogrjzedheusehold pets"'under thc

eov-enants *na rouy, "ot

be hcpt urmaintained on any tot in rtrs subdivision

El. Thc Defendants afe pernranently re.+hoined and c4ioined from breaching tlrs

Covenantg for the Subdiuision anel eaoh are requited to remove their ehiekens ftom their

;#;i; p,*p*,tie,"

g2, It is fhi.r and just, under the eircutnstanees of this case that the Defendanls be

allowed u r**"nuil*il11r1 of time (until September 30, 2014), to conre into

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

83. Both sides shall bear their orvn sosts and fees'

84. The Plaintiffis requested to pr's,pate tlre f,rnal order and siftmit it to me f'or signatme

after approval aE '"

ltt* by thc Dcfendant. Tliis letter will bs fileq1 iuto the recold on or

about Ap:il 18th" 2014.

I sincerery appreeiatc the profession.arism disprayed by ail counsel and their elients during

tlre headngs i-n this case,

Sineercly,

DI$TF,ICT JUDOE PRO TEM