Hidden Hills Community, Inc. v. Rogers
3 La.App. 3 Cir. 1447, 869 So.2d 984, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 696 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant requiring property to be 'reasonably neat and clean' is not ambiguous and is violated when a property is cluttered with thousands of miscellaneous objects, creating the appearance of a junkyard, based on the ordinary meaning of the terms and an objective, reasonable person standard.
Facts:
- Hidden Hills is a residential community governed by a recorded set of restrictive covenants.
- One covenant requires that all lots, whether occupied or unoccupied, must be kept in a 'reasonably neat and clean condition'.
- Frank Rogers, Jr., a resident of Hidden Hills, began decorating his property in an unusual manner around 1997.
- Over the next few years, Rogers' 'decorations' escalated significantly.
- By late 2000, his property was covered with thousands of items, including plastic jugs hanging from trees, old appliances like TVs and dishwashers, toilets, cow skulls, a cash register, and numerous signs.
- Rogers also suspended a glove on a pole with its middle finger pointing towards his neighbor's property.
- In late 2000, other residents of Hidden Hills began formally complaining to the community's Board of Directors about the state of Rogers' property.
Procedural Posture:
- Hidden Hills Community, Inc. filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment against Frank Rogers, Jr. in the trial court for the Parish of St. Landry.
- Rogers filed an Exception of No Right of Action, which the trial court dismissed.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court found in favor of Rogers, ruling that his property was not in violation of the covenant.
- The trial court denied Hidden Hills' Motion for a New Trial.
- Hidden Hills, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeal, with Rogers as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property decorated with thousands of objects, including plastic jugs, old appliances, toilets, and banners, violate a restrictive covenant requiring the lot to be kept 'reasonably neat and clean'?
Opinions:
Majority - Gremillion, J.
Yes, the property violates the restrictive covenant. A covenant requiring a property to be 'reasonably neat and clean' is interpreted using the generally prevailing meaning of its words. Based on photographic evidence and testimony, the court found Rogers' property, which it described as a 'veritable junkyard,' was the antithesis of 'neat' and 'clean.' The court rejected the trial court's finding as unreasonable and manifestly erroneous, holding that an objective, reasonable person could not conclude the property was neat and clean. Rogers' subjective belief that the arrangement was artistic or geometrically pleasing was deemed 'absurd' and irrelevant to the objective standard imposed by the covenant.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that courts will enforce aesthetic restrictive covenants by applying an objective, reasonable person standard based on the plain meaning of the language used. It establishes that while terms like 'reasonable' provide flexibility, they are not so broad as to permit conduct that dramatically deviates from community standards. The court's reversal of the trial court's factual finding as 'manifestly erroneous,' based heavily on photographic evidence, highlights the significant weight such evidence can carry in these disputes. The case serves as a strong precedent for homeowners' associations seeking to enforce subjective covenants against extreme violations.
