## Facts

- Town & Country Estates is a residential subdivision in Gallatin County, Montana, governed by recorded restrictive covenants incorporated into lot deeds.
- The covenants required (1) minimum dwelling size and specified materials and (2) prior written approval by a Design Review Committee for all construction, including a requirement that proposed construction be “in harmony of external design” with surrounding structures.
- James R. Slater and spouse purchased a vacant lot and submitted plans for a single-family home that met the objective requirements (including approximately 2,600 square feet and a shake roof).
- The Design Review Committee rejected Slater’s plans as not conforming to the subdivision’s “general tone” and suggested a design more comparable to neighboring homes, referencing a higher price range.
- Slater began construction without approval; after a temporary restraining order, Slater submitted revised plans that were again rejected as not in harmony with nearby homes.
- The district court permanently enjoined Slater from constructing the proposed residence, finding the plans violated the covenants and the committee acted within its authority.

## Issues

1. Whether a restrictive covenant requiring design-committee approval and “harmony of external design” is valid and enforceable.
2. Whether the Design Review Committee acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in rejecting Slater’s plans, including consideration of aesthetic and value-related factors.
3. Whether permanent injunctive relief barring construction was an appropriate remedy for violating the covenants.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The Court held the architectural approval and harmony-of-design provision was valid and enforceable.
- The Court held the committee’s rejection was not arbitrary or unreasonable and was consistent with the covenants’ purposes and the subdivision’s established character.
- The Court upheld the permanent injunction prohibiting construction of the unapproved design.

## Legal Principles

- Recorded restrictive covenants creating architectural controls, including requirements of prior approval and harmony of exterior design, are enforceable when applied to advance the development’s general plan.
- A design-review committee’s discretionary decision will be upheld if made in good faith, reasonably, and consistent with the covenants’ objectives; courts will not overturn decisions that are not arbitrary or capricious.
- Aesthetic considerations may support enforcement of architectural covenants when tied to preserving subdivision character and protecting property values.
- Injunctive relief is a proper remedy when an owner proceeds with construction in violation of valid restrictive covenants and without required approval, especially where damages are difficult to measure.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the subdivision’s architectural-control covenants, deferred to the design committee’s reasonable good-faith determination that the proposed house was not in harmony with surrounding homes, and affirmed a permanent injunction stopping construction undertaken without the required approval.


Town & Country Estates Ass’n v. Slater, 740 P.2d 668 (Mont. 1987)