Facts
- Payne S. Harris and Soliska R. Harris owned a lot in De Vargas Development Company Subdivision No. 2 in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
- The subdivision was subject to recorded restrictive covenants that ran with the land and limited construction to a private dwelling and necessary outbuildings.
- The covenants required that the dwelling and necessary outbuildings be “in the style or form or appearance known as the Old Santa Fe or Pueblo-Spanish style of architecture.”
- The covenants expressly allowed enforcement by the developer (the company) or “any owner of adjacent or abutting premises” through injunction or other legal proceedings.
- The Harrises began constructing a swimming-pool enclosure on their lot that was visible from outside their property and from neighboring lots.
- Neighboring lot owners who could see the enclosure, along with R. J. Gaskin (as trustee and successor to the subdivider’s interests), sued to stop the construction and compel removal, alleging the enclosure violated the architectural restriction.
- The Harrises conceded the enclosure did not conform to the required Old Santa Fe or Pueblo-Spanish style and was described as modern and oriental/pagoda-like.
- The Harrises argued the restriction should not be enforced because architectural conditions in the subdivision had changed, pointing to other buildings that did not strictly match the stated style.
- The Harrises’ expert testified that a number of houses did not strictly conform to Old Santa Fe or Pueblo-Spanish style, but conceded the buildings in the subdivision still matched each other in a uniform and consistent type of construction.
- The Harrises also claimed they lacked notice of the restriction when they purchased the lot and did not learn of it until the enclosure was substantially completed.
- The trial court found that, despite some variations, the subdivision’s buildings substantially conformed with the architectural requirement except for the Harrises’ enclosure, and it ordered removal of the enclosure.
- The Harrises appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the recorded architectural covenant requiring Old Santa Fe or Pueblo-Spanish style construction could be enforced by neighboring owners (and the subdivider’s successor) to require removal of a nonconforming pool enclosure.
- Whether alleged changes in architectural conditions within the subdivision made equitable enforcement improper.
- Whether the Harrises’ claimed lack of actual notice prevented enforcement of the recorded covenants.
- Whether the cost and hardship of removal justified denying injunctive relief.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering the Harrises to remove the swimming-pool enclosure.
- The court held the recorded restrictive covenants ran with the land and were enforceable by the parties granted enforcement rights in the covenants, including neighboring owners.
- The evidence did not show a change in conditions so substantial that the restriction’s purpose had been defeated; the subdivision retained a consistent architectural character, and the Harrises’ structure was the significant departure.
- The court rejected the hardship argument, concluding the subdivision-wide benefit of enforcing the restriction outweighed the Harrises’ claimed hardship from removal.
- The court rejected the lack-of-notice defense because recordation provided constructive notice binding subsequent purchasers.
Legal Principles
- Recorded restrictive covenants stated to run with the land bind subsequent purchasers and may be enforced in equity by those granted enforcement rights in the covenant instrument, including neighboring owners when specified.
- A “changed conditions” defense defeats enforcement only when changes are so substantial that the covenant’s original purpose and benefit have been materially destroyed; partial or limited deviations that leave overall uniformity intact do not suffice.
- When a covenant remains beneficial to the subdivision as a whole, a court may grant injunctive relief ordering removal of a violating structure even if removal is costly to the violator.
- Recordation provides constructive notice; lack of actual notice generally does not relieve a purchaser from compliance with recorded restrictions affecting the land.
Conclusion
In Gaskin v. Harris, the New Mexico Supreme Court enforced recorded subdivision covenants requiring Old Santa Fe or Pueblo-Spanish architecture, holding that the restrictions ran with the land and could be enforced by neighboring owners and the subdivider’s successor; because the subdivision largely retained a consistent architectural character and recordation supplied constructive notice, the court affirmed an injunction requiring removal of the Harrises’ nonconforming, pagoda-style swimming-pool enclosure despite their claims of changed conditions, hardship, and lack of actual notice.