## Facts

- A 1940 recorded declaration imposed uniform protective covenants on all lots in the Linda Vista Addition subdivision in Santa Fe, New Mexico, including residential-use restrictions.
- The declaration stated the covenants ran with the land and bound all owners and successors.
- Paragraph (X) provided the covenants would bind the lots until January 1, 1966, and then automatically extend for successive 10-year periods unless a majority of then lot owners agreed to change the covenants “in whole or in part.”
- After the covenants automatically extended beyond January 1, 1966, a majority of lot owners signed a written consent purporting to remove all restrictions from Joseph M. Montoya’s single lot and allow commercial use.
- Montoya filed a quiet-title action seeking a decree freeing only his lot from the restrictions while leaving the covenants in force for the rest of the subdivision.
- Twenty lot owners opposed the one-lot release, asserting the declaration did not authorize removing restrictions from only one lot while retaining them for all other lots.
- The trial court granted relief to Montoya and removed the covenants from his lot; the opposing lot owners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a declaration authorizing a majority of lot owners to “change the said covenants in whole or in part” permits removing all restrictions from a single lot while leaving the restrictions in effect for all other lots in the subdivision.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the portion of the decree that exempted Montoya’s lot from the covenants.
- The court held paragraph (X) did not authorize the majority to relieve one lot of all restrictions while preserving the restrictions for the remainder of the subdivision.
- Because this issue required reversal, the court did not address the other appellate points.

## Legal Principles

- A subdivision declaration creating a common plan of uniform restrictions will not be construed to allow selective, lot-specific exemption absent clear authorization.
- Language permitting a majority to change covenants “in whole or in part” is construed as permitting alteration of some or all substantive restrictions, not redistribution of the covenant burden by removing all restrictions from a single lot while keeping them on others.
- A claimed power to alter reciprocal burdens and benefits in a manner detrimental to nonconsenting owners must be clearly expressed in the recorded instrument.

## Conclusion

The court held that the declaration’s majority-modification clause did not permit a majority of owners to free one lot from all restrictive covenants while leaving the covenants intact for the rest of the subdivision, and it reversed the decree granting that one-lot exemption.


Montoya v. Barreras, 473 P.2d 363 (N.M. 1970)