## Facts

- Hidden Hills Community, Inc. is a residential community surrounding a lake and subject to recorded building restrictions.
- One restriction (Article 17) required property owners to keep their lots “reasonably neat and clean.”
- Frank Rogers, Jr. owned a home in Hidden Hills.
- Before the dispute, Rogers painted his house in unusual colors and patterns and displayed decorations hanging from trees.
- In late 2000, the quantity and character of objects Rogers placed outside changed substantially.
- Rogers placed thousands of objects around the home, including plastic bottles, political signs, appliances, lawnmowers, animal skulls, toilets, caution tape, banners, and other items.
- Items were placed on the ground, raised on poles, and suspended from trees.
- After neighbors complained to the community board, Rogers added more items outside.
- In September 2001, Hidden Hills filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that Rogers violated Article 17 and requesting enforcement, including a \$200-per-day fine.
- Rogers filed an exception of no right of action; the trial court denied it.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court ruled for Rogers, finding his “presentation in his decoration and landscaping” did not violate the restrictions; the court denied Hidden Hills’ motion for new trial.
- Hidden Hills appealed. On appeal, Rogers argued the restriction could not be enforced due to prescription and abandonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed manifest error in finding Rogers’s property condition did not violate the “reasonably neat and clean” restriction.
2. Whether Hidden Hills’ enforcement action was barred by the two-year limit for actions based on a “noticeable violation” under La. Civ. Code art. 781.
3. Whether the restriction was extinguished by abandonment under La. Civ. Code art. 782.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded.
- The court held the evidence showed Rogers’s accumulation and display of thousands of objects was not “reasonably neat and clean” under Article 17, and the trial court’s contrary finding was manifestly erroneous.
- The court rejected Rogers’s prescription defense, concluding the suit (filed September 2001) was not shown to be outside the two-year period measured from the commencement of a noticeable violation, given the late-2000 change in the property’s condition.
- The court also rejected abandonment under La. Civ. Code art. 782, finding insufficient proof that violations were so general in the community as to indicate an intent to abandon the restriction.
- Although Rogers challenged the denial of his no-right-of-action exception, the court did not reach that assignment because Rogers did not file an answer to the appeal as required by La. Code Civ. P. art. 2133.

## Legal Principles

- Building restrictions in a subdivision may be enforced according to their text and the subdivision plan reflected by the recorded restrictions.
- A restriction requiring lots to be kept “reasonably neat and clean” can be enforced against conditions that, by their nature and magnitude, fall outside any reasonable understanding of neatness and cleanliness.
- Under La. Civ. Code art. 781, an action for injunction or damages for violation of a building restriction must be brought within two years from the commencement of a noticeable violation.
- Under La. Civ. Code art. 782, a building restriction may be lost by abandonment only when violations are so general as to show an intent to abandon the plan; isolated or atypical violations do not establish abandonment.
- Appellate review under the manifest error standard permits reversal when the factfinder’s no-violation determination is clearly wrong in light of the record.
- A party seeking to change a judgment in its favor on appeal must properly answer the appeal; otherwise the appellate court may decline to consider that party’s assignments seeking affirmative relief.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Third Circuit held that Rogers’s placement of thousands of disparate items around his home violated Hidden Hills’ covenant requiring lots to be kept “reasonably neat and clean,” reversed the trial court’s no-violation judgment, rejected prescription and abandonment defenses on the record presented, and remanded for further proceedings.


Hidden Hills Community, Inc. v. Rogers, 869 So.2d 984 (2004)