Cree Meadows, Inc. (NSL) v. Palmer

Citations: 362 P.2d 1007; 68 N.M. 479Docket: 6752

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; June 28, 1961; New Mexico; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Cree Meadows, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to extinguish certain restrictive covenants related to the Cree Meadows Country Club Subdivision. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, leading to an appeal by the defendants, which included Joe C. Palmer, M.S. Hamilton, and George McCarty. The restrictive covenants, established in 1947, contained four sections: two sections imposed restrictions on Blocks 1 through 11 and Tracts A, B, and C; a third section outlined uses for the Country Club Tract and Cree Meadows Golf Course; and the fourth section detailed the duration of the covenants, which were set to last until December 31, 1995, with automatic ten-year extensions unless a majority of lot owners voted to amend them. Amendments could occur if approved by three-fourths of the owners of any affected block or tract, with additional consent required from two of the original signatories if they or their heirs owned property within a mile of the subdivision. The case centers on the interpretation and potential extinguishment of these covenants, particularly regarding their binding nature and the rights they create for the landowners involved.

Land designated as a tract within the boundaries of a block on the official plat of the Country Club Subdivision is considered part of that block for voting purposes. The plaintiff is the sole owner of the "Country Club Tract" and "Cree Meadows Golf Course." Over ten years after the original restrictive covenants were executed, the plaintiff issued a document titled "Extinguishment of Restrictive Covenants," asserting ownership of the entire front footage of both properties and extinguishing restrictions except for a 100-acre area of the golf course comprising the playing area and surrounding rough. This extinguishment aimed to eliminate restrictions on the country club tract and the southern 76.4 acres of the golf course, which the trial court approved in a declaratory judgment.

None of the parties in the case purchased lots in the subdivision, although some defendants own approximately four lots and have interests in undeveloped nearby lands. The trial court determined that the golf course is a significant natural open space in Ruidoso, New Mexico, appreciated for its beauty by local residents and landowners. It found that the defendants had sold lots based on the existing plat and covenants, leading to higher sale prices influenced by these representations. The plat indicates an irregularly shaped area surrounding the golf course, which includes 112 lots across 11 blocks and 4 tracts. The golf course was initially designed as an 18-hole course; however, only nine holes were constructed, adjacent to the subdivided properties. The plaintiff now seeks to repurpose the area intended for the second nine holes. None of the subdivision lots directly abut this area. The defendants contest certain trial court findings but the appellate review indicates the trial court misapplied the law based on the established facts.

The restrictive covenants in question specify extinguishment only for the areas designated as "blocks" or "tracts," explicitly excluding the "golf course." An analysis of the original restrictive instrument, plat, and trial circumstances reveals the parties intended to treat the golf course differently from "blocks" or "tracts." Therefore, the extinguishment provision does not apply to the golf course, although it does apply to the "Country Club Tract." 

The status of the golf course area is significant because it was originally dedicated and included in the plat, which also includes streets and alleys accessible to subdivision purchasers. These streets and alleys were accepted by county commissioners, confirming their availability for use. Case law indicates that even without explicit approval, easements for access to streets and alleys are implied, and ownership can coexist with easement rights. 

Even though the defendants charged for golf course access while owning it, this does not negate the rights of grantees who purchased with the expectation of the golf course being preserved as a natural area. The legal framework suggests that purchasers of lots referenced in a plat acquire rights to use all delineated streets and areas, with some jurisdictions (notably Maryland) imposing limitations to abutting streets. Courts in multiple jurisdictions support a broad application of these easement rights, especially regarding parks and open spaces.

The legal document cites several cases and texts to establish the principle that private rights to use a park-like area, such as a golf course, can arise from implied grants, covenants, or estoppel, independent of any public rights due to dedication. The Cree Meadows golf course is recognized as integral to the subdivision, and its continued existence must be legally protected. Although the plaintiff owns the fee of the golf course, their use is subject to easements favoring subdivision owners. The court refrains from addressing public use rights and finds that references to restrictive covenants in the plaintiff's deed do not alter the original dedication's legal implications. The court affirms that the benefits of the golf course are intended to extend to other subdivision parcels, and any attempt to reduce the area risks undermining its intended purpose. Consequently, the court reverses and remands the case for the trial court to correct its previous rulings and ensure the preservation of the golf course area as originally designated.