## Facts

- Eldorado at Santa Fe is a residential subdivision in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, governed by protective covenants originally adopted in 1972 and amended and restated in 1996.
- A covenant provision (Section 11, “Household pets”) stated: “No animals, birds[,] or poultry shall be kept or maintained on any lot, except recognized household pets which may be kept thereon in reasonable numbers as pets for the pleasure and use of the occupants but not for any commercial use or purpose.”
- Several residents, including Susan Billings and others, kept hens on their lots and asserted they were kept as pets, not for commercial purposes.
- The subdivision association responsible for enforcing the covenants asserted hens are “poultry,” not “recognized household pets,” and therefore prohibited.
- The association supported its position with claimed enforcement history, asserted developer intent, and an affidavit suggesting poultry are usually kept for food production rather than companionship.

## Issues

1. Whether Section 11’s exception for “recognized household pets” permits residents to keep hens as pets despite the provision’s reference to “poultry.”
2. Whether the covenant language is ambiguous and, if so, how ambiguity must be construed under New Mexico law.
3. Whether summary judgment ordering removal of the hens was proper based on extrinsic evidence (developer intent, community expectations, enforcement history).

## Decision

- The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the association.
- The court held Section 11 is unclear and ambiguous as to whether poultry may qualify as “recognized household pets.”
- Applying New Mexico rules for restrictive covenants, the court construed the ambiguity in favor of the free use of land.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that hens can never be “recognized household pets” under the covenant’s text.
- The court indicated that stricter bans on poultry should be pursued through the covenants’ amendment process, not judicial interpretation that adds restrictions.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants are interpreted according to their text; ambiguity is construed against restriction and in favor of the free use of property.
- Courts should not impose implied prohibitions based on asserted developer intent, later community expectations, or enforcement practices when the covenant language does not clearly require that result.
- When a covenant creates a general prohibition with an exception for “recognized household pets,” and it is ambiguous whether a species may fit the exception, the ambiguity may permit that use and does not support categorical exclusion as a matter of law.
- If owners desire a clearer or more restrictive rule, the proper remedy is amendment under the covenants’ specified procedures.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that the “household pets” covenant was ambiguous regarding hens and, construing the ambiguity to allow freer use of land, reversed summary judgment that compelled residents to remove hens kept as pets.


Eldorado Cmty. Improvement Ass’n, Inc. v. Billings, 374 P.3d 737 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016)