Background
The parties own property in neighboring Cary subdivisions near the Fox River. Lowe and his wife sought to remove Marks’s and Hansen’s piers from lots 10 and 11 of Spring Beach, which a Spring Beach Heights plat dedicated for lot owners’ river access and recreation and barred buildings or structures without unanimous written consent. Marks had maintained a pier since purchasing his home in 1991, and Hansen installed one in 2010.
Marks and Hansen counterclaimed over a driveway running through Lowe’s lots in the Second Addition from Spring Beach Way to Lowe’s property outside the three subdivisions. The circuit court denied the Lowes’ request to remove the piers on laches grounds and enjoined them from using the driveway to access Spring Beach Way.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the driveway injunction. Although the original Spring Beach plat restricted Spring Beach owners from using the private road to access outside land, that restriction did not bind the separately platted Spring Beach Heights or Second Addition. The later Spring Beach Heights plat expressly gave owners in those two subdivisions use of Spring Beach Way, but did not incorporate the earlier restriction.
The court affirmed the denial of relief against the piers. The trial court reasonably applied laches because Marshall knew of Marks’s pier as early as 1992, the Lowes had standing by 2008, and they waited nearly 12 years after that to sue without explanation. The delay prejudiced Marks, who bought his home in reliance on pier access, and Hansen, who installed and maintained his pier after years of apparent acceptance of Marks’s pier.
Key Takeaways
- A restrictive covenant in one subdivision does not automatically apply to adjacent, separately platted subdivisions.
- Courts will not read unexpressed restrictions into a later plat that grants roadway access without incorporating earlier limitations.
- Laches can bar enforcement of a property restriction despite a continuing alleged violation when delay is unreasonable and causes prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that recorded covenants are enforced according to their text and scope. Property owners seeking to enforce long-standing restrictions should act promptly: extended inaction can make equitable relief unavailable even where the underlying restriction would otherwise support an injunction.