## Facts

- In the early 1970s, Abraham Lorenz orally agreed to sell property to Deward H. Miller, who intended to subdivide the land into a development called Granite Springs Retreat.
- Lorenz conveyed the property to Miller in two parcels due to financing: the first parcel was conveyed by warranty deed on August 14, 1972 (later Granite Springs Retreat, First Filing), and the second parcel was conveyed in March 1977 (later Granite Springs Retreat, Second Filing).
- Before Miller received legal title to the Second Filing parcel, he pursued approvals for a single, integrated subdivision covering both parcels:
  - A preliminary plat (dated August 1, 1975) and a subdivision application (filed August 4, 1975) described a 60-lot subdivision to be known as Granite Springs Retreat.
  - An environmental impact report for the project stated that restrictive covenants would be attached to all tracts within the subdivision.

- Miller filed the plat for Granite Springs Retreat, First Filing on October 1, 1976.
- On October 4, 1976, Miller recorded a Declaration of Protective Covenants (DPC) for “Granite Springs Retreat.” The DPC did not include a detailed legal description, but it described the affected property by the development name and set out restrictions and an association/assessment structure.
- After obtaining title to the Second Filing property in March 1977, Miller filed the plat for Granite Springs Retreat, Second Filing on August 11, 1977.
- On September 15, 1977, Miller conveyed all of the Granite Springs Retreat property to Happy Jack Stable & Lounge, Inc., a corporation owned by Miller and Lorenz.
- On February 23, 1978, Miller recorded an Amended Declaration of Protective Covenants that was largely the same as the original but allowed certain tracts for commercial use; Miller signed it without reflecting that Happy Jack Stable & Lounge, Inc. held title.
- In prior litigation, the amended covenants were held invalid because Miller recorded them after title had been conveyed to the corporation.
- On July 29, 1983, Miller recorded an Affidavit of Intention stating he intended the original covenants to apply to all Granite Springs Retreat lots in both the First and Second Filings.
- Lot owners later formed the Granite Springs Retreat Association (GSRA), which operated as the homeowners’ association for the development.
- In February 2009, several lot owners (Cash and others) sued GSRA seeking a declaration that the 1976 DPC did not burden lots in the Second Filing. The district court granted summary judgment to GSRA, and the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1976 Declaration of Protective Covenants is enforceable against Second Filing lots as equitable servitudes even though Miller did not hold legal title to the Second Filing land when he recorded the declaration.
2. Whether the declaration applied to Second Filing lots where the Second Filing plat was recorded after the declaration and the declaration did not set out a specific legal description of the Second Filing land.
3. Whether Second Filing purchasers had sufficient notice (record, actual, or inquiry) that their lots were subject to the covenant scheme.
4. Whether equitable defenses such as laches barred the plaintiffs’ attempt to avoid the covenants after years of subdivision-wide reliance on the covenant scheme.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for GSRA.
- The court held the 1976 DPC was enforceable as an equitable servitude against lots in both the First Filing and the Second Filing.
- The court agreed that, although Miller lacked legal title to the Second Filing parcel in 1976, he had an equitable interest arising from the agreement and his integrated subdivision plan, supporting enforcement in equity.
- The court concluded the record showed a single development plan for Granite Springs Retreat (including planning documents, plats, and the later affidavit of intention), supporting application of the covenants to the Second Filing.
- The court determined the plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the covenant scheme, including record notice from recorded instruments and inquiry notice from the subdivision’s long-running association structure and common plan.
- The court also upheld the district court’s reliance on laches to reject the plaintiffs’ delayed effort to treat Second Filing lots as free of the covenants.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wyoming law, restrictive covenants may be enforced in equity as equitable servitudes even when technical requirements for real covenants are not met, so long as the covenant scheme was intended to apply to the land, touches and concerns the land, and binds purchasers with notice.
- A developer’s lack of legal title at the time of recording does not necessarily defeat enforcement in equity where the developer holds an equitable interest and the evidence shows an intent to create a uniform subdivision plan.
- A common scheme for a subdivision may be shown through recorded plats, subdivision applications, environmental or planning materials, recorded declarations, and subsequent recorded statements confirming the intended scope of restrictions.
- Purchaser notice may be established through recorded instruments (constructive notice), direct knowledge (actual notice), or facts that would prompt a reasonable buyer to investigate (inquiry notice).
- The invalidity of a later amended declaration does not automatically void an earlier declaration; an original declaration may remain enforceable as the source of equitable servitude obligations.
- Laches may bar a late challenge to long-relied-upon subdivision restrictions where other owners and the community have relied on the covenant scheme over time and a delayed challenge would be inequitable.

## Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court held that Granite Springs Retreat’s 1976 recorded protective covenants bound lots in both filings as equitable servitudes because the developer pursued a single subdivision plan covering both parcels, held an equitable interest in the later-acquired parcel when the covenants were recorded, and purchasers had adequate notice; equitable delay principles further supported rejecting the plaintiffs’ effort to exclude Second Filing lots from the covenant scheme.


Cash v. Granite Springs Retreat Ass'n, Inc., 248 P.3d 614 (2011)