Preview:

1 JONES V. SCHOELLKOPF, 2005-NMCA-124, 138 N.M. 477, 122 P.3d 844 THOMAS E. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAKE SCHOELLKOPF and ANDREA SCHOELLKOPF, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 25,055 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2005-NMCA-124, 138 N.M. 477, 122 P.3d 844 September 22, 2005, Filed APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Valerie Mackie Huling, District Judge Released for publication November 15, 2005. COUNSEL Thomas E. Jones, Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellant Briggs F. Cheney, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees JUDGES LYNN PICKARD, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Chief Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge AUTHOR: LYNN PICKARD OPINION

PICKARD, Judge. {1} Plaintiff appeals from the decision of the trial court, which allowed to stand a six-foot wall that Defendants had built at or near their lot line across the street from Plaintiff's house. Plaintiff claimed that the wall violated the restrictive covenants applicable to the neighborhood, which Plaintiff alleged prohibited walls higher than three feet and prohibited walls in a 25-foot set-back area. Defendants claimed, and the trial court found, that the intent of the covenants was not violated; that the covenants were ambiguous; that the covenants provided for an architectural control committee that could permit the wall they built, but there was no such committee in existence; and that changes in society since the covenants were enacted in the 1950s made a three-foot wall unreasonable. The trial court allowed 30 days for the formation of an architectural control committee and allowed it to make decisions about the completion of the wall, but prohibited the committee from ordering the wall's removal. {2} On appeal, Plaintiff argues that (A) the trial court's ruling was incorrect as a matter of evidence and property law, (B) the trial court erred in denying him a jury trial on his claim of

Download 2005-NMCA-124.pdf

New Mexico Law