MADISON — A rural Monticello couple can build a second attached garage to their house without violating the restrictive covenants on their property, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
The District IV Court of Appeals opinion overturned a decision by Green County Judge Thomas Vale who ruled for the Ron Hill Estates Architectural Control Committee and against Thomas and Christine Zeal.
According to the appeals opinion:
The Zeal residence on Ron Hill Lane has a three-car attached garage. In 2016, Thomas Zeal wanted additional storage space for landscaping equipment and asked the committee about their role in approving construction plans.
Zeal met with the committee but didn’t specify he intended to build a second attached garage. The committee assumed Zeal was planning to construct an outbuilding so, discussion centered around the size restrictions the covenants put on them.
The covenant concerning garages states: “All dwellings must have at least a two car (and not more than three car) attached garage.”
The covenant also gives the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) authority over property owners wanting to alter existing structures. In November 2017, the ACC rejected the Zeals’ plans for exceeding the maximum allowance on attached garages.
The Zeals appealed the ACC’s decision on the grounds that the covenants don’t prohibit them from building a second attached garage.
Judge Vale determined that the only reasonable interpretation of the garage covenant prohibits construction of a second attached garage. Vale also noted that a house with multiple garage doors would lower property values of neighboring homes.
The Zeals appealed Vale’s decision and the District IV Court took another look at the covenant’s meaning. If the covenant could reasonably have more than one meaning, the appeals court could conclude it was ambiguous and unenforceable. However, if the covenant meaning was clear than it is to be strictly enforced, the court noted.
The Zeals’ attorney, Daniel Evans, argued that the covenant only requires each house to have a minimum of a two-car garage, so it could not unambiguously establish a maximum number of attached garages.
Their neighbors’ attorney claimed that the garage covenant mandates one and only one attached garage with a two- or three-car capacity, and the Zeals have reached that capacity.
Had the covenant read “at most” instead of “at least,” the Zeals would have been prohibited from adding a second attached garage, according to the appeals court.
“(T)here is no clear expression of a maximum number of attached garages per lot. In the absence of any such language, we cannot conclude that the covenant expressly prohibits the building of a second attached garage,” according to the 18-page, unsigned opinion.
Since no other covenant prohibits a second attached garage in clear terms, the appeals opinion returned the case to Vale to allow the Zeals the right to construct a second attached garage.
Lance McNaughton, attorney for the neighbors, declined to comment on the opinion, saying he was not authorized to speak to a reporter in their behalf. Evans said he was happy with the decision which reinforces property rights.
“Some may think that a garage is a trivial matter but not in terms of property rights and what covenants are. Architectural control committees are common in subdivisions and those covenants can’t be interpreted arbitrarily by ACCs because it affects property rights,” Evans said.
Evans didn’t believe the legal dispute has injured his clients’ relationship with their neighbors.
“Hopefully, it won’t have a bad impact. It’s not an issue of a neighbors’ dispute but one of deed restrictions and how the ACC members interpreted them … Having clarity will reduce any issues there were,” he said.
Attempts to reach committee members were unsuccessful.