## Facts

- A residential subdivision in Jefferson County, Missouri included a 120-acre man-made lake and about 930 lots governed by recorded restrictive covenants.
- The original covenants authorized only an annual assessment of $0.55 per front foot for maintenance of common property and contained no amendment procedure and no authorization for special assessments.
- Over time, sedimentation and pollution substantially degraded the lake; an engineering study concluded dredging was necessary and estimated the cost at about $170,000, exceeding revenues from the annual assessment.
- In an earlier lawsuit, a court entered a final consent decree approving revised covenants that (1) established a procedure allowing changes by a simple majority of votes cast by subdivision owners and (2) permitted special assessments approved under that procedure.
- Acting under the revised covenants, the association proposed a one-time special assessment of $2.60 per front foot to fund dredging; a majority of votes cast approved the amendment, and it was recorded.
- Multiple lot owners refused to pay; the association sued to establish and foreclose liens authorized by the amended covenants.
- The objecting owners did not meaningfully dispute the need for dredging but argued the prior consent decree was ineffective because the earlier court lacked power to amend the original covenants without fraud or mistake.

## Issues

1. Whether a final consent decree entered in earlier litigation validly amended subdivision covenants to create a majority-vote amendment mechanism and authorize special assessments.
2. Whether the consent decree and the amended covenants were binding on later lot owners such that liens securing a majority-approved special assessment could be enforced against their properties.
3. Whether the objecting owners could collaterally attack the consent decree in the lien-foreclosure action absent fraud, mistake, or lack of jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court and reinstated enforcement of the special-assessment liens.
- The court held the earlier consent decree was a valid, final judgment and enforceable as to the matters it resolved, including the revised covenant structure permitting amendments and special assessments.
- The court rejected the owners’ collateral attack because the earlier court had jurisdiction, and no fraud or mistake was shown.
- The amended covenants, adopted and recorded under the decree’s procedures, authorized the special assessment and the resulting liens.

## Legal Principles

- A consent decree has the character of both a contract and a judgment; once final, it has preclusive effect as to matters adjudicated.
- A final judgment of a court with subject-matter and personal jurisdiction is binding and generally not subject to collateral attack merely because it may be legally erroneous.
- Absent proof of fraud, mistake, or jurisdictional defect, a consent decree cannot be invalidated in later litigation by parties in privity with those bound by the decree.
- In a subdivision governed by a recorded common plan, later purchasers who take with notice may be bound by prior judgments affecting the covenant scheme.
- When recorded covenants, as validly amended, authorize a special assessment and provide for liens upon nonpayment, courts will enforce those liens if the required approval procedure is followed.

## Conclusion

The court enforced liens securing a one-time lake-dredging assessment because a prior final consent decree validly revised the subdivision’s recorded covenants to allow majority-approved amendments and special assessments, and later owners could not collaterally challenge that decree without showing fraud, mistake, or lack of jurisdiction.


Lake Tishomingo Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Cronin, 679 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. 1984)