## Facts

- Paul A. Christiansen and Irene A. Christiansen developed a 63-lot portion (Lots 1–63) of the Lake Village residential subdivision in eastern Jackson County, Missouri.
- In May 1976, the Christiansens caused a recorded “declaration of restrictions” to be filed against Lots 1–63 as part of the subdivision’s development plan.
- The declaration included restrictions on improvements and fences, including a requirement that fences be chain-link.
- The declaration also reserved to Christiansen ongoing authority to review and approve plans for construction on the lots, expressly including fences; the document referred to Christiansen in different places as “owner,” “developer,” and “the undersigned.”
- Richard S. Casey and Vicki Casey owned Lot 5. They had actual notice of the recorded restrictions.
- Without obtaining Christiansen’s approval, Richard Casey built a wooden fence on Lot 5 that Christiansen alleged violated the fence restriction.
- On August 17, 1979, the Christiansens sued seeking a temporary restraining order, temporary and permanent injunctions, and damages for violation of the restrictions.
- The parties later stipulated that, when the petition was filed, the Christiansens no longer owned any of Lots 1–63; they did own property in an adjacent neighborhood.
- The Caseys moved to dismiss, arguing that only fee simple owners of Lots 1–63 had the right to seek judicial enforcement under the declaration, so the Christiansens lacked standing.
- After reserving ruling and holding a hearing related to temporary injunctive relief, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of standing.
- The Christiansens appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a developer who recorded subdivision restrictions and reserved plan-approval/enforcement authority in the declaration has standing to enforce those restrictions after selling all lots burdened by the declaration.
2. Whether the declaration, read as a whole, limits the right to seek judicial enforcement solely to current fee simple owners of Lots 1–63.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the dismissal.
- The court held the Christiansens had standing to enforce the restrictive covenants based on the rights reserved to them in the recorded declaration, even though they no longer owned any of Lots 1–63.
- The court concluded the trial court misread the declaration and misapplied the law by treating enforcement as restricted to current lot owners.
- The cause was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the alleged fence violation.

## Legal Principles

- A recorded declaration of restrictions is construed from the instrument as a whole to determine the rights and duties it creates and to carry out the development plan expressed in the document.
- A developer may reserve continuing authority to review and approve construction (including fences) and may enforce compliance with the restrictions when that authority and enforcement role are granted by the recorded declaration accepted by purchasers.
- Standing to enforce subdivision restrictions may arise from the enforcement and approval powers reserved in the declaration, not only from present ownership of a lot subject to the restrictions.
- A dismissal for lack of standing is improper when the declaration’s terms, fairly read, grant the plaintiff an enforceable right to control and approve improvements and to seek judicial enforcement.
- On appeal of a court-tried case, reversal is warranted when the judgment erroneously declares or applies the law (Murphy v. Carron).

## Conclusion

Christiansen v. Casey holds that where a developer records subdivision restrictions and reserves to himself continuing authority to approve improvements—specifically including fences—the developer may sue to enforce those restrictions even after divesting title to all lots subject to the declaration, because the enforcement right flows from the recorded declaration’s allocation of control rather than from current fee ownership of a restricted lot.


Christiansen v. Casey, 613 S.W.2d 906 (1981)