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 case revolves around the Defendant's attempt to subdivide his property into two lots, each less than one-half acre, contrary to the restrictive covenants governing the Lovato Subdivision No. 1. The Plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent this subdivision, arguing it violated the covenants designed to ensure single-family residences on lots of at least one-half acre. This appeal follows a previous appeal and remand where the court directed the district court to consider the Defendant's equitable defenses and other covenant violations within the subdivision (para 2).

Procedural History

• Heltman v. Catanach, 2010-NMCA-016: The appellate court reversed the district court's decision for failing to consider evidence relevant to Defendant’s equitable defenses and remanded for a new trial on whether those defenses should prevent enforcement of the covenants.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant's proposed subdivision violated the restrictive covenants of the subdivision, which were intended to maintain the character of the neighborhood by ensuring single-family residences on lots of at least one-half acre.
• Defendant: Contended that the subdivision had undergone significant changes that justified his proposed lot split. He argued that the district court failed to properly consider the extent of these changes and that Plaintiff had acquiesced to similar violations, thereby waiving her right to enforce the covenant against him.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in ruling that there had not been a radical change in the subdivision to which Plaintiff had acquiesced.
• Whether the district court erred in enjoining the Defendant's proposed lot split.

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the district court's order enjoining the Defendant from subdividing his property (para 11).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with CYNTHIA A. FRY and M. MONICA ZAMORA concurring, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction. The appellate court held that the district court properly considered the Defendant's equitable defenses and the evidence of other covenant violations within the subdivision. It concluded that the changes to the subdivision were not so significant or radical as to warrant setting aside the covenants and that the Plaintiff had not acquiesced to violations of the same or similar covenants, thereby not waiving her right to enforce the covenant at issue. The court emphasized the district court's thorough examination of the facts and its logical conclusions supported by the evidence (paras 3-10).