## Facts

- Valley West Subdivision lots were governed by recorded protective covenants running with the land and benefiting all lots.
- The covenants limited each lot to residential purposes and allowed outbuildings only as accessory to a residence.
- The covenants required a 25-foot setback from lot lines and imposed building material restrictions, including roofing limitations.
- The covenants created a land owners/control committee to review construction plans and allowed limited exceptions, but did not authorize waiver of core use and setback requirements.
- Wayne and Shirley Kadrmas (Lot 24) built a 60' x 40' garage/shop with a metal roof, set back only 12 feet from the lot line, and without any residence on the lot.
- Greg Morris (Lot 23) sought injunctive relief and damages against the Kadrmases for covenant violations and also sued the committee for failure to enforce the covenants.
- The committee had approved the Kadrmases’ plans; the Kadrmases relied on that approval to justify the construction.
- The district court dismissed the committee from the case and granted summary judgment to the Kadrmases; Morris appealed only the judgment in favor of the Kadrmases.

## Issues

1. Whether a subdivision control committee’s approval can validate construction that conflicts with unambiguous restrictive covenants when the covenants do not authorize the committee to waive the relevant restrictions.
2. Whether a lot owner’s failure to appeal dismissal of claims against the subdivision committee bars the owner from enforcing restrictive covenants directly against neighboring lot owners.
3. Whether undisputed violations of the residence, setback, and materials restrictions required reversal of summary judgment for the violating lot owners.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for the Kadrmases and remanded.
- The court held the committee’s approval could not override or nullify explicit covenant requirements that the committee lacked authority to waive.
- The court held Morris retained an independent right, as a lot owner, to enforce the covenants directly against the Kadrmases despite not appealing the committee’s dismissal.
- Because the material facts were undisputed and the construction conflicted with the recorded restrictions, the Kadrmases were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Recorded restrictive covenants that run with the land and expressly grant enforcement rights to individual lot owners are enforceable directly by those owners against other lot owners.
- A control committee’s plan-approval role is limited to the authority granted in the covenants; committee action cannot amend, waive, or excuse compliance with unambiguous restrictions absent express authorization.
- Core subdivision restrictions—such as residential-use requirements and specified setback requirements—are subject to strict compliance when stated in mandatory terms.
- Procedural disposition of claims against a subdivision committee does not eliminate a separate, direct enforcement action against a covenant violator when the covenants provide an owner-to-owner enforcement right.

## Conclusion

The court required enforcement of the subdivision’s clear residential-use and setback restrictions notwithstanding committee approval, and it confirmed that individual lot owners may sue neighboring owners to enforce recorded covenants even if claims against the committee are not pursued on appeal.


Morris v. Kadrmas, 812 P.2d 549 (Wyo. 1991)