FOREST G. REICHERT and JENNIFER G. REICHERT, husband and wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs),
v.
JEFFREY B. DAUGHERTY and DEBRA D. DAUGHERTY, husband and wife, Appellees (Defendants).
Appeal
from the District Court of Teton County The Honorable Marvin
L. Tyler, Judge
Representing Appellants Douglas FitzGerald Schultz, Schultz
Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming
Representing Appellees James R. Salisbury, The Salisbury
Firm, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming
Before
DAVIS, C.J., and BURKE [*], FOX, KAUTZ, and BOOMGAARDEN, JJ.
DAVIS,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
[¶1]
Forest and Jennifer Reichert own Lot 8 in the Western Tanager
Subdivision in Jackson, Wyoming, and Jeff and Debra Daugherty
own Lot 7. The Reicherts filed a quiet title action against
the Daughertys challenging the enforceability of a plat
restriction that bars Reicherts' use of a portion of Lot
8 and gives exclusive use of and responsibility for that
property to the Daughertys. The district court granted
summary judgment to the Daughertys, and we affirm.
ISSUES
[¶2]
The Reicherts present two issues on appeal, which we
summarize and restate as a single issue:
Does the restriction contained in the subdivision's
recorded plat create an enforceable covenant appurtenant to
Lot 8?
FACTS
[¶3]
The Reicherts and Daughertys own adjacent properties in the
Western Tanager Subdivision in Jackson, Wyoming. The
Reicherts obtained their property by a warranty deed dated
September 24, 1996, which described the property as:
"Lot 8 Western Tanager Subdivision Second Amendment,
Teton County, Wyoming, according to that plat recorded in the
Office of the Teton County Clerk on September 12, 1990 as
Plat No. 701." The warranty deed conveyed the property
"subject to taxes, reservations, covenants,
encroachments, conditions, restrictions, rights-of-way and
easements of sight and/or record."
[¶4]
The Daughertys obtained their property by a warranty deed
dated February 21, 2014, which described the property as:
"Lot 7 Western Tanager Subdivision, Second Amendment,
Teton County, Wyoming, according to that plat recorded
September 12, 1990 as Plat No. 701." The warranty deed
also conveyed the property "subject to taxes,
reservations, covenants, encroachments, conditions,
restrictions, rights-of-way and easements of sight and/or
record."
[¶5]
Both Lots 7 and 8 are located on and accessed via Juniper
Lane, with the entirety of Lot 7 located to the west of
Juniper Lane. Most of Lot 8 is located to the east of Juniper
Lane, but the westernmost portion of Lot 8 is transected by
Juniper Lane, leaving a strip of Lot 8 to the west of the
road. Lot 6 is configured in a similar manner, with most of
it situated to the east of Juniper Lane and a small strip to
the west of the road.[1]
[¶6] The smaller strips of Lots 6 and 8 located to the
west of Juniper Lane are each marked on the subdivision's
recorded plat (Plat 701) as a "restricted use
area," with a reference to the Certificate of Owners
located on sheet one of the plat. The Certificate of Owners
specifies:
Lot 6 and 8 of the foregoing subdivision shall have no
private use or maintenance responsibility within that area of
the Juniper Lane right-of-way which is located on the
northwesterly side of the actual Juniper Lane road; said
private use and maintenance responsibility shall be assigned
instead to Lots 4, 5, and 7 of the foregoing subdivision;
each of said Lots being assigned the private use of, and
maintenance responsibility for the portion of said area which
adjoins that Lot, and lies between the easterly extensions of
the side boundaries of that Lot.
[¶7]
In 2015, the Reicherts and Daughertys began having issues
concerning a fence located on Lot 8's restricted use area
west of Juniper Lane. The fence existed when the Reicherts
purchased Lot 8 in 1996, and both parties claim they have
done work to maintain it. The parties disagreed on which of
them controlled the fence and what should be done with it.
The Reicherts contend the fence should be removed from the
Lot 8 restricted use area and relocated to the Lot 7 property
line to protect Lot 8 from the Daughertys' livestock and
to make room for the Reicherts to store plowed snow. The
Daughertys contend that they have the exclusive right to use
and maintain the restricted use area, including the fence,
and that the Reicherts are improperly plowing their snow onto
the property and thereby damaging the fence.
[¶8]
The disputed property (restricted use area) and fence are
depicted below in relation to the parties' respective
properties.
(Image
Omitted)
[¶9] The parties were unable to resolve their
differences concerning the disputed property, fence, and snow
storage, and on March 25, 2016, the Reicherts filed a quiet
title action against the Daughertys. The Reicherts sought to
quiet title to the restricted use area and requested an order
directing the Daughertys to remove the fence from that
portion of Lot 8. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the
district court ruled in favor of the Daughertys. The court
found the terms and provisions of Plat 701 to be clear and
unambiguous and concluded:
Under the plain and ordinary meaning of the language imposing
the restrictions under Plat 701, [the Reicherts] may not use,
and/or they are restricted from using the Disputed Property
for their private use, and they have no maintenance
responsibility for the Disputed Property. Conversely, [the
Daughertys] may use the Disputed Property for their private
use and must maintain or provide for the general repair and
upkeep [of] the Disputed Property. This restriction included
in Plat 701 was a private agreement that restricts the use of
the Disputed Property. Further, ...