Thomas Knudsen, Trustee v. Gregory DeJean

Syllabus

he defendant, Gregory DeJean (Dr. DeJean), appealed from a final order and judgment of the Superior Court following a nonjury trial, granting plaintiffs'—Thomas Knudsen, Trustee, and Ciara Ladnier and Edward Knudsen, Trustees—claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Doctor DeJean argued that the trial justice erred by interpreting an ambiguous restrictive covenant in favor of a more restrictive use, granting injunctive relief that gave plaintiffs a windfall, and rejecting Dr. DeJean's laches defense. <br><br>The Supreme Court held that although the trial justice made a finding of ambiguity, it was apparent that this purported \ambiguity\ was the restrictive covenant's failure to provide for a remedy to address the parties' dispute. By contrast, the trial justice found the terms of the restrictive covenant clear and determined that Dr. DeJean had violated paragraph ten of the restrictive covenant by permitting the unbridled growth of his landscaping. Interpreting paragraph ten de novo, the Supreme Court determined that the plain language of the restrictive covenant unambiguously prohibits changes to the natural condition of the properties without the agreement of the property owners. The Court further determined that the examples listed in paragraph ten plainly indicated that changes to the natural condition of the property encompassed changes to the trees, shrubs, plants, fields, loam, soil, and stone fences. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial justice's finding that Dr. DeJean violated paragraph ten. Given that Dr. DeJean violated a 1989 restrictive covenant prohibiting him from making changes to the natural condition of the property, the Supreme Court determined that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial justice to order injunctive relief that would achieve the same effect of the landscaping that existed in 1989. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Dr. DeJean's laches defense because he offered no explanation as to why t