## Facts

- A residential subdivision was governed by a recorded declaration of protective covenants intended to protect property value and maintain the development’s attractiveness and natural appearance.
- The covenants required lot owners, before constructing or altering structures, to submit plans and proposed exterior materials to an Architectural Review Committee for approval.
- The covenants prohibited arbitrary decision-making by providing that approval could not be unreasonably withheld, but they also permitted disapproval if a proposal was not in keeping with the surrounding landscape and natural beauty.
- Roofing in the subdivision had been consistently constructed with cedar shakes, reflecting the development’s established aesthetic.
- The McHurons sought to build a home using fiberglass/asphalt shingles rather than cedar shakes; the Committee disapproved the shingles as aesthetically unattractive and inconsistent with the subdivision’s natural setting.
- Despite the disapproval, the McHurons installed fiberglass shingles.
- The developer sued to enforce the covenants and require replacement of the fiberglass shingles with cedar shakes; the district court granted summary judgment for the developer and ordered compliance.

## Issues

1. Whether the restrictive covenants created an enforceable general plan of development governing exterior materials through committee review.
2. Whether the covenants provided sufficiently definite standards for aesthetic control, despite not listing specific permitted or prohibited roofing materials.
3. Whether the Committee unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld approval of fiberglass/asphalt shingles, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the developer.
- The court held the covenants were unambiguous and supported an enforceable general plan of development.
- The court concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact concerning the approval requirement, the Committee’s disapproval, the subdivision’s established cedar-shake appearance, and the McHurons’ installation of fiberglass shingles.
- The Committee’s disapproval of fiberglass shingles was not unreasonable under the covenants, so enforcement and injunctive relief were proper as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants are interpreted as contracts; unambiguous covenants are enforced according to their plain meaning and manifested intent.
- Architectural review discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith, consistent with the covenants’ stated purposes and the development’s general plan.
- Aesthetic standards tied to preserving the surrounding landscape and natural beauty can be sufficiently definite to support enforcement, particularly when applied consistently within an established pattern of development.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when material facts are undisputed and the committee’s decision falls within the reasonable scope of discretion granted by the covenants.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the subdivision’s architectural review covenants, holding that the Committee reasonably rejected fiberglass/asphalt shingles as inconsistent with the development’s established cedar-shake aesthetic and the covenants’ purpose of maintaining a natural appearance, and that no material factual dispute precluded summary judgment.


McHuron v. Grand Teton Lodge Co., 899 P.2d 38 (Wyo. 1995)