AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The plaintiffs filed a complaint for breach of contract concerning restrictive covenants. They contested the amendments made to these covenants, arguing that the changes did not uniformly apply to all properties within the subdivision, thereby invalidating them. The defendants, including the Ticonderoga Owners’ Associations and several individuals, maintained that the amendments were not only permissible but also executed properly, applying uniformly across the subdivision.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, Sheri A. Raphaelson, District Judge: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' complaint for breach of contract regarding restrictive covenants.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the amendments to the restrictive covenants were invalid as they did not uniformly apply to all properties affected. They also contended that the language in the covenants did not adequately inform them of the ability of a majority of property owners to change the covenants and that such amendments cannot be arbitrary.
• Defendants-Appellees: Defended the amendments to the restrictive covenants, asserting that they were allowed and properly executed. They argued that the changes applied uniformly to all properties in the subdivision and that the covenants clearly provided for the possibility of amendment by a super-majority of property owners.

Legal Issues

• Whether the amendments made to the restrictive covenants were valid and properly executed.
• Whether the changes to the restrictive covenants applied uniformly to all properties in the subdivision.
• Whether the language in the covenants adequately informed property owners of the ability to amend the covenants.
• Whether the amendments to the covenants were arbitrary or lacked consideration.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael E. Bustamante, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The court concluded that the amendments to the restrictive covenants were valid and properly executed, as they were allowed by a clear provision within the covenants themselves and applied uniformly to all properties in the subdivision. The court found no ambiguity in the covenant regarding the ability of property owners to amend the covenants and determined that the amendments were not arbitrary. The court also addressed the plaintiffs' argument regarding the lack of consideration for the covenants, concluding that the ability of a super-majority of property owners to amend the covenants did not result in a lack of consideration. The court distinguished the present case from others where the developer retained the power to unilaterally change restrictive covenants, noting that here, the covenants provided a mechanism for all those subject to the covenants to effect a change.