HIGDEM v WHITHAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12873 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA F 1975 E M R HIGDEM and VERDA HIGDEM, L E husband and w i f e , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, HT A WILLIAM R. W I H M and J U N G YUL WHITHAM, husband and w i f e , Defendants and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : McGarvey and Moore, K a l i s p e l l , Montana James D. Moore argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondents: Fennessy, Crocker and Harman, Libby, Montana David W. Harman argued, Libby, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed : 1.. . , lJj'L ' 2 May 9 , 1975 Jbp 1 3 19% J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court Mr. . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t s W i l l i a m R . Whitham and Jung Yul Whitham from a n o r d e r and judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , L i n c o l n County, h o l d i n g t h a t a g a r a g e b u i l t by t h e d e f e n d a n t s v i o l a t e d c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s and o r d e r i n g t h e g a r a g e removed. The m a t t e r was t r i e d by t h e c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury. The m a t t e r was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h e s e agreed f a c t s : "That p l a i n t i f f s [Elmer Higdem and Verda Higdem] and d e f e n d a n t s a r e n e i g h b o r s and owners of a d j a c e n t l o t s of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Mountain V i e w P a r k , a s u b d i v i s i o n i n L i n c o l n County, Montana, which i s located approximately one-half m i l e n o r t h of Libby, Montana. P l a i n t i f f s a r e owners of Lot 1, Block 6 o f Mountain View P a r k . Defendants a r e owners of Lot 2 , Block 6 of Mountain View P a r k . P l a i n t i f f s 1 l o t i s b o r d e r e d on two s i d e s by dedi c a t e d s t r e e t s , i n t h e r e a r by a n a l l e y and t o t h e w e s t by d e f e n d a n t s ' l o t . D e f e n d a n t s have f r o n t a g e on a d e d i c a t e d s t r e e t , a n a l l e y t o t h e r e a r , p l a i n t i f f s t o t h e e a s t and by McGlumphys, not p a r t i e s t o t h i s action, t o t h e w e s t . That Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 6 Mountain View P a r k owned by p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s of r e c o r d a t Book 109 Page 155 Book of Deeds a t t h e o f f i c e of t h e L i n c o l n County C l e r k and Recorder * * *. "That on o r , a b o u t A p r i l 2 4 , 1974 d e f e n d a n t s commenced c o n s t r u c t i o n on a g a r a g e a d d i t i o n on t h e i r l o t , which g a r a g e i s 34 f e e t wide, 38 f e e t d e e p and i t s maximum h e i g h t w i l l be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 5 f e e t 9 i n c h e s . The g a r a g e a d d i t i o n w i l l c o n t a i n t h r e e g a r a g e d o o r s and w i l l be a t t a c h e d t o t h e d w e l l i n g l o c a t e d on t h e l o t . A l l of t h e p e r t i n e n t l o t s a r e 5 0 f e e t wide by 125 f e e t d e e p . "That t h e p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s s h a r e a w e l l s y s t e m , t h a t t h e w e l l system i s e n c l o s e d above t h e s u r f a c e of t h e ground; t h a t t h e w a t e r s o u r c e i s approximately forty-two ( 4 2 ' ) beneath t h e s u r f a c e of t h e ground. "That t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t one t i m e i n q u i r e d among n e i g h b o r s i n t o t h e e f f i c a c y of p e r f o r m i n g o c c a s i o n a l s m a l l mechanical j o b s , such a s t u n e - u p s , w i t h i n t h e g a r a g e s t r u c t u r e and was informed by n e i g h b o r s t h a t t h e y would o b j e c t t o s u c h a u s e of t h e s a i d garage s t r u c t u r e . "That t h e g a r a g e i n q u e s t i o n d o e s n o t e n c r o a c h upon p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . " The r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e a g r e e d statement of f a c t s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e : "1. The p u r c h a s e r s , a s t o t h e s a i d l o t s of l a n d h e r e b y conveyed, and w i t h i n t e n t t o b i n d a l l p e r s o n s i n whom t h e s a i d l o t s h e r e b y conveyed s h a l l f o r t h e t i m e b e i n g be v e s t e d , b u t n o t s o a s t o be p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e under t h i s c o v e n a n t a f t e r having p a r t e d with t h e s a i d l o t s , f o r themselves and t h e i r h e i r s and a s s i g n s h e r e b y c o v e n a n t w i t h t h e s e l l e r s and t h e i r a s s i g n s a s f o l l o w s : " a . Not t o e r e c t any b u i l d i n g o t h e r t h a n a s i n g l e d e t a c h e d d w e l l i n g house, e i t h e r w i t h o r w i t h o u t a g a r a g e o r o t h e r l i k e and n e c e s s a r y o u t b u i l d i n g , upon t h e s a i d l o t s of l a n d hereby conveyed, o r any p a r t t h e r e o f . "b. Not t o e r e c t o r s u f f e r t o be e r e c t e d upon s a i d l o t s o f l a n d hereby conveyed any d w e l l i n g house a t a c o s t of l e s s t h a n $10,000.00, s u c h c o s t t o be c a l c u l a t e d upon t h e n e t c o s t of l a b o r and m a t e r i a l a l o n e , e s t i m a t e d a t p r i c e s now c u r r e n t . " c . Not t o u s e any b u i l d i n g t o be e r e c t e d upon s a i d l o t o f l a n d h e r e b y conveyed o r any p a r t t h e r e o f , f o r any p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n t h o s e i n c i d e n t t o t h e u s e o f a p r i v a t e d w e l l i n g house o n l y ; t h i s p r o v i s i o n b e i n g i n t e n d e d t o p r o h i b i t t h e u s e of any h o u s i n g f o r l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y , o r f o r any commercial p u r p o s e , p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t n o t h i n g h e r e i n i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o h i b i t u s e of any s u c h b u i l d i n g f o r p r i v a t e workshops, g r e e n houses o r o t h e r l i k e p u r p o s e s . " With t h e a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s and c o v e n a n t s b e f o r e i t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y of p l a i n t i f f s and de- f e n d a n t s and t h a t of one Glenn M u e l l e r , a n e i g h b o r . Defendant William Whitham t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had purchased t h e p r o p e r t y s e v e r a l y e a r s ago and a t t h a t t i m e had c o n s i d e r e d t a k i n g odd j o b s when he g o t t h e g a r a g e b u i l t , b u t he e n c o u n t e r e d s u c h o p p o s i t i o n from n e i g h b o r s t h a t he abandoned t h a t i d e a and had s o informed h i s n e i g h b o r s ; t h a t t h e one c a r g a r a g e t h a t came w i t h t h e house was i n a d e q u a t e f o r h i s u s e and t h a t of h i s f a m i l y , a w i f e and t h r e e c h i l d r e n , who between them owned t h r e e compact s t a t i o n wagons, two p i c k u p s , a Suzuki m o t o r c y c l e , and two t r a i l Hondas; t h a t one of t h e r e a s o n s f o r b u i l d i n g a l a r g e g a r a g e was t o f u r n i s h s t o r a g e f o r t h e v e h i c l e s , t o o l s , lawn e q u i p ment, e x t r a t i r e s and f i r e w o o d ; t h a t a f t e r b u i l d i n g t h e g a r a g e h e c o n v e r t e d t h e o l d one c a r g a r a g e i n t o a d e n . Whitham's w i f e t e s t i f i e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s h e r husband. P l a i n t i f f Elmer Higdem, a l o c a l a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and h i s f a m i l y had l i v e d i n t h e a d d i t i o n o v e r t e n y e a r s ; t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n d a n t s moved i n B i l l Whitham t o l d him of h i s i n t e n t t o b u i l d a g a r a g e and h e m i g h t do odd j o b s i n i t a s a mechanic; t h a t he t o l d Whitham he would o b j e c t t o any s u c h commercial work; t h a t a s t o t h e g a r a g e , h e would n o t have o b j e c t e d t o a two s t a l l g a r a g e b u t when he saw t h e s i z e of t h e a c t u a l g a r a g e d e f e n d a n t w a s b u i l d i n g , h e o b j e c t e d and f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g v i o l a t e d t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s , and i n t e r f e r e d . w i t h h i s easement of l i g h t and a i r . P l a i n t i f f Verda Higdemls t e s t i m o n y concerned a n e x h i b i t s h e had p r e p a r e d of t h e p l a t s i n q u e s t i o n . The t e s t i m o n y of M u e l l e r , a n e i g h b o r , concerned t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t had e a r l i e r d i s c u s s e d b u i l d i n g a new g a r a g e w i t h him and t h a t he was c o n s i d e r i n g t a k i n g s m a l l mechanical j o b s a t h i s home. The t r i a l c o u r t made n i n e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , none harmful t o d e f e n d a n t and t h e n concluded: "1. The g a r a g e a d d i t i o n i s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants i n t h a t defendants already had an a t t a c h e d g a r a g e on s a i d p r o p e r t y ; and i s not a necessary outbuilding. " l a . That t h e a d d i t i o n a l b u i l d i n g , i t s s i z e and t h e p u r p o s e i n t e n d e d a r e i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. "2. That s a i d c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p a r e n t l y w i l l n o t r e s u l t i n a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i n g t h e w a t e r system. "3. That s a i d g a r a g e a d d i t i o n d o e s n o t v i o l a t e any zoning r e g u l a t i o n s o r C i t y O r d i n a n c e s , s i n c e none a r e now i n e x i s t e n c e . "4. That d e f e n d a n t s should remove s a i d g a r a g e a d d i t i o n from t h e p r e m i s e s due t o d e f e n d a n t s 1 v i o l a t i n g t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. "5. Plaintiffs are entitled t o t h e i r costs." Defendants a p p e a l and p r e s e n t two i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w : 1. Are t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s o f law s u p p o r t - ed by t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t ? 2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e language of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants s o a s t o p r o h i b i t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of d e f e n d a n t s ' g a r a g e ? Regarding i s s u e No. 1, we f i n d t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of law, i f t h a t t h e y a r e , a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . ~ o n c l u s i o n s4 and 5 s i m p l y s t a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d remove t h e g a r a g e and pay p l a i n t i f f s t h e i r c o s t s . These, we b e l i e v e , a r e remedies, n o t proper conclusions. A f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , d e f e n d a n t s moved f o r a new t r i a l , b u t t h i s was d e n i e d , b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Under Montana's Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e would have been t o proceed under Rule 5 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t . From t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s it would a p p e a r t h e o r d e r f o r removal of t h e g a r a g e must have been based on i t s c o n c l u s i o n l a : "That t h e a d d i t i o n a l b u i l d i n g , i t s s i z e and t h e p u r p o s e i n t e n d e d a r e i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e rest r i c t i v e covenants." However, no r e f e r e n c e i s made t o a s p e c i f i c c o v e n a n t and none of t h e c o v e n a n t s r e l a t e t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , e x i s t e n c e , o r s i z e of any b u i l d i n g s on t h e l a n d . Covenant " c " o n l y r e l a t e s t o t h e u s e o f t h e l a n d and t h e u s e of t h e s t r u c t u r e s . The o n l y l a n g u a g e i n c o v e n a n t " a " which i n any way might r e l a t e t o s i z e , a l b e i t i n d i r e c t l y , i s t h e phrase "necessary outbuildings". H e r e , we a r e considering a garage. W note t h e term e " n e c e s s a r y " does n o t p r o c e e d t h e t e r m " g a r a g e " , b u t r a t h e r t h e cerm " o u t b u i l d i n g " . Assuming t h e t r i a l c o u r t s u p e r i m p o s e d t h e t e r m " n e c e s s a r y " upon t h e new g a r a g e , w e l o o k t o a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n a£ t h i s C o u r t , Timmerman v . G a b r i e l , 1 5 5 Mont. 294, 298, 470 P.2d 528, t o i n t e r p r e t t h e t e r m "necessary" i n a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. I n Timmerman t h e C o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a " d o u b l e wide" t r a i l e r f e l l w i t h i n t h e meaning o f a c o v e n a n t p r o h i b i t i n g trailers. The C o u r t s a i d : "The c o n s t r u c t i o n o f c o v e n a n t s i n d e e d s t o p r o p e r t y i s n o t u n l i k e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of c o n t r a c t s . " S e c t i o n 13-710, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : " ' T h e words of a c o n t r a c t a r e t o b e u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e i r o r d i n a r y and popular s e n s e , r a t h e r t h a n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r s t r i c t l e g a l meaning, u n l e s s u s e d by t h e p a r t i e s i n a t e c h n i c a l s e n s e , o r unless a s p e c i a l meaning i s g i v e n t o them by u s a g e , i n which c a s e t h e l a t t e r must be f o l l o w e d . " ' Montana d o e s n o t have c a s e a u t h o r i t y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e t e r m " n e c e s s a r y o u t b u i l d i n g s " w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a r e s t r i c t i v e coven a n t , b u t w e f i n d a number o f c a s e s t h r o u g h o u t o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s c o n s t r u i n g t h e word " n e c e s s a r y " t o mean c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e d w e l l i n g and w e s o hold here. Granger v . B o u l l s , 2 1 Wash.2d 597, 152 P.2d 325; Thompson v . P e s t C o n t r o l Comm., v . K u g l e r , 17 C a l . R p t r . (La. 1 9 5 4 ) , 75 S.2d 406; King 504; 92 ALR2d 872. Here, t h e new g a r a g e i s c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e h o u s e and i s i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y of t h e a r e a . The c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h e g a r a g e must be t o r n down and removed i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by a n y o f i t s f i n d i n g s . The s e c o n d i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e language of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g t h e g a r a g e removed. T h i s C o u r t i n Dunphy v . Anaconda Co., 4 3 8 P.2d 1 5 1 Mont. 76, 8 0 , 660, spoke t o t h e r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t a r e a p p l i c a b l e here: "Althougn v a r i o u s r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n have been d e v e l o p e d and employed i n d i v e r s e c a s e s t h a t have come b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t i n t h e p a s t , we c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t o be a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n s t a n t case i n determining l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . The i n t e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e must f i r s t be d e t e r m i n e d from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words u s e d , and i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e c a n be s o d e t e r m i n e d , t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y any o t h e r means o f i n t e r pretation. [Citing cases.] Where t h e language of a s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e i s nothing l e f t f o r t h e c o u r t t o construe. [Citing cases.] The f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t i s s i m p l y t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what i n t e r m s o r i n subs t a n c e i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d . [Citing cases.] In short, it i s s i m p l y t h e d u t y of t h e Supreme C o u r t t o c o n s t r u e t h e law a s i t f i n d s i t . [ C i t i n g c a s e s . ] " Applying t h e above p r i n c i p l e s t o c o n s t r u i n g t h e language of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s h e r e , w e h o l d t h a t where t h e words a r e p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and c e r t a i n and a d m i t of b u t one meaning, t h e n i t i s t h e d u t y of t h i s C o u r t t o d e c l a r e what t h e t e r m s of t h e cove n a n t s c o n t a i n and n o t t o i n s e r t a l i m i t a t i o n n o t c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n . I n t h e i r b r i e f and on o r a l argument, p l a i n t i f f s a r g u e d i n the s u p p o r t o f / t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n of law l a , which r e f e r s t o t h e s i z e of t h e g a r a g e . They r e l y on c a s e a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h e i r p o s i t i o n , and c i t e t h r e e c a s e s . 473, 293 N.W. 723; Moore v . White, Bruce v . McClees, 1 1 0 N.J.E. Hansen v . F a c i o n e , 294 Mich. (Okla. 1 9 5 8 ) , 323 P.2d 352; 92, 158 A . 849. d i f f e r f a c t u a l l y from t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . We find these cases I n Bruce t h e c o v e n a n t had a s e t back p r o v i s o of a t l e a s t 1 0 0 f e e t from t h e s t r e e t and much of t h e c a s e t u r n e d on i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p r o v i s o . Hansen i n v o l v e d a d e f e n d a n t who owned and o p e r a t e d two f i v e t o n t r u c k s f o r h a u l i n g r u b b i s h and h e b u i l t a 4 0 f o o t by 50 f o o t g a r a g e , i n a r e s t r i c t e d a r e a , t o accommodate h i s b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s . While Moore i s c l o s e t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e f a c t w i s e , t h e r e was a s e t back r e g u l a t i o n and a s p a c e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t a k e s Moore o u t of t h e f a c t s i t uation here. The o v e r r i d i n g p o l i c y of i n d i v i d u a l e x p r e s s i o n i n f r e e and r e a s o n a b l e l a n d u s e d i c t a t e s t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n s s h o u l d n o t be a i d e d o r extended by i m p l i c a t i o n o r e n l a r g e d by c o n s t r u c t i o n . Sporn v . O v e r h o l t , 175 Kan. 1 9 7 , 262 P.2d 828; F l a k s v . Wichman, 128 Col. 45, 260 P.2d 737; Granger v . B o u l l s , 2 1 Wash.2d 597, Three b a s i c r u l e s may be g l e a n e d from t h e s e c a s e s : (1) t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d , ( 2 ) t h a t a m b i g u i t i e s be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r of f r e e u s e of p r o p e r t y , and ( 3 ) t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d n o t have b r o a d l y i n t e r p r e t e d and imposed t h e s e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s i n t e r m s of what t h e p a r t i e s would have d e s i r e d had t h e y i n i t i a l l y been confronted with questions l a t e r developing. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e cause returned t o t h e d i s t r i c t court with d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s . ................................ Justices Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s cause. Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I concur i n t h e r e s u l t h e r e b u t do n o t b e l i e v e we need beyond t h e c o v e n a n t l a n g u a g e find that the trial c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s are n o t c o r r e c t . Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
