EISMANN, Justice.
This is an appeal out of Kootenai County regarding the interpretation of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for a subdivision. We reverse the judgment of the district court and award the appellants attorney fees on appeal.
Black Rock Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, developed a planned unit development consisting of residential homes and a golf course on the shore of Lake Coeur d'Alene. The development was named Black Rock. The plat was recorded on August 16, 2001, and thereafter plats were recorded for additions one through eight. The development consists of about 659 acres.
On July 21, 2001, Black Rock Development recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC & R's) applicable to the development. The CC & R's created the position of "Declarant," named Black Rock Development as the Declarant, stated the rights of the Declarant, defined the time period that the Declarant would be entitled to exercise those rights, and specified the qualifications for a "Successor Declarant." The rights of the Declarant included "the exclusive powers to appoint, remove and replace Directors and officers of the [Black Rock Homeowners'] Association."
The golf course in the development was developed and owned by The Club at Black Rock, LLC (The Club). Its property, consisting of about 206 acres, included an eighteen-hole, championship golf course, a 31,000-square-foot clubhouse, golf practice and maintenance facilities, tennis courts, a swimming pool and Jacuzzi, and a private beach. The Club had executed deeds of trust as security for the payment of bank loans it had obtained from the Washington Trust Bank (Bank). On August 11, 2010, The Club conveyed its real property to the Bank in lieu of foreclosure. On the same date, Black Rock Development assigned to the Bank all of its rights and interests as the Declarant under the CC & R's.
On August 23, 2010, the Bank assigned the real property and the Declarant rights to West Sprague Avenue Holdings, LLC (West Sprague). On October 29, 2010, West Sprague deeded the real property and assigned the Declarant rights to an entity named The Golf Club at Black Rock, LLC (The Golf Club), which is a different entity than The Club. On November 5, 2010, Black Rock Development assigned to The Golf Club any Declarant rights that Black Rock Development may still have retained due to any procedural or substantive defect in the prior assignments.
On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiffs, who are the owners of at least one lot in Black Rock and are members of the Black Rock Homeowner's Association, Inc., filed this action against The Golf Club seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not qualified to be a Successor Declarant and therefore could not exercise the Declarant rights. Both sides moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether The Golf Club satisfied the requirements of being a Successor Declarant under the CC & R's. The district court held that it did. It therefore dismissed the complaint and awarded court costs, including attorney
When interpreting CC & R's, this Court generally applies the rules of contract construction. Pinehaven Planning Bd. v. Brooks, 138 Idaho 826, 829, 70 P.3d 664, 667 (2003). However, because provisions in the CC & R's that restrict the free use of property are in derogation of the common law right to use land for all lawful purposes, the Court will not extend by implication any such restriction not clearly expressed and all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the free use of land. Id.
"If a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous, the contract's meaning and legal effect are questions of law to be determined from the plain meaning of its own words." Bream v. Benscoter, 139 Idaho 364, 367, 79 P.3d 723, 726 (2003). "Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law over which we exercise free review." Howard v. Perry, 141 Idaho 139, 142, 106 P.3d 465, 468 (2005). "Ambiguities can be either patent or latent." Swanson v. Beco Constr. Co., Inc., 145 Idaho 59, 62, 175 P.3d 748, 751 (2007). "Idaho courts look solely to the face of a written agreement to determine whether it is [patently] ambiguous." Ward v. Puregro Co., 128 Idaho 366, 369, 913 P.2d 582, 585 (1996). "A latent ambiguity is not evident on the face of the instrument alone, but becomes apparent when applying the instrument to the facts as they exist." In re Estate of Kirk, 127 Idaho 817, 824, 907 P.2d 794, 801 (1995). In this case, the parties do not contend that there is a latent ambiguity in the relevant provisions of the CC & R's. "[T]he parties to a contract are free to define in the contract words that are used therein, even if those definitions vary from the normal meanings of the words." Idaho Trust Bank v. Christian, 154 Idaho 657, 659, 301 P.3d 1275, 1277 (2013). "A contractual provision will be found ambiguous if it is reasonably subject to conflicting interpretations." Lovey v. Regence BlueShield of Idaho, 139 Idaho 37, 46, 72 P.3d 877, 886 (2003).
Section 2.22 of the CC & R's defines the "Declarant." It states, "Black Rock Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, or its successors or assigns, including any Successor Declarant to the extent the rights of Declarant are assigned to the Successor Declarant, as provided in Section 2.50." Thus, an assignee of Black Rock Development can be a Declarant under the CC & R's "to the extent the rights of Declarant are assigned to the Successor Declarant, as provided in Section 2.50."
Section 2.50 of the CC & R's provide that a Successor Declarant must be an assignee of any or all of the Declarant's "rights, obligations or interest as Declarant, as permitted by Section 27.7."
The district court agreed, holding that the word "Property" in section 27.7 was not limited to real property. Therefore, the intent to develop and sell golf club memberships satisfied the requirement that the Successor Declarant take "title to all or part of the Property ... for the purpose of development and sale." The district court's interpretation of the provision was erroneous because the word Property in section 27.7 unambiguously refers to real property.
The applicable provisions of the CC & R's are not ambiguous. Section 2.46 states that "Property" "[i]ncludes the property described on Exhibit `A' and initially subjected to this Declaration, and also refers to any Expansion Property that may be incorporated in the Project from time to time and made subject to these Covenants pursuant to the provisions of this Declaration." Exhibit "A" is the legal description of the real property initially included in the Project. Expansion Property is also defined as being real property.
Likewise, the "Project" is defined in section 2.46 as "Community and any additions, pursuant to 2.7. of this Declaration." The word "Community" is defined in section 2.20 as "[t]he Black Rock Planned Unit Development." A planned unit development involves the development of real property, not personal property. I.C. § 67-6515. Thus, section 2.7 defines "Black Rock Planned Unit Development" as "[t]he community created by this Declaration (`Community'), consisting of the Property (including any Expansion Property, after annexation in accordance with Article 22) and all of the improvements located on the Property, also referred to herein from time to time as `Project', pursuant to 2.46." The Project and the Black Rock Planned Unit Development are defined as referring only to real property.
The CC & R's provide that they were adopted only to apply to real property. The second sentence states, "Declarant hereby adopts the following Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Black Rock Planned Unit Development and any additions (hereinafter referred to as the "Project" located at the Property), and declares that the following shall apply to the subject Property and to any interest in that Property." The third sentence states that the CC & R's "shall run with the land, and with each estate therein." The CC & R's state that they are "intended to regulate the Project and use of the Black Rock Planned Unit Development for the mutual benefit of future Owners and occupants."
Finally, the only property owned by The Club that was covered by the CC & R's was its real property. Section 2.16 defined "Club" as being "The Club at Black Rock, L.L.C., an Idaho limited liability company." "Club Property" was defined as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
In summary, neither the district court nor The Golf Club has pointed to any provision of the CC & R's that indicates the word "Property" meant anything other than real property that was subject to the CC & R's. Section 27.7 requires that a Successor Declarant have taken title to "all or part of the Property... for the purpose of development and sale." The phrase "for the purpose of development and sale" refers to the reason for taking title to the Property. The only logical construction is that the Successor Declarant must have acquired title to all or part of the Property for the purpose of developing and selling the Property acquired.
That is consistent with the definition of "Development Rights" in the CC & R's. Section 16 of the CC & R's is entitled "Special Declarant Rights and Additional Reserved Rights." Section 16.1.2 states:
Likewise, the provision in the CC & R's indicates that the sales are of real property. Section 16.1.3 entitled "Sales Activities" states, "The right to maintain sales and management offices, signs advertising the project and model residences on the Common Area and on Lots owned by Declarant, whether contained within the Property initially subject to this Declaration, or within the Expansion Property, if any."
In this case, The Golf Club acquired title to about 206 acres that had been developed into a golf course, clubhouse, and other facilities. Roger Rummel, a managing member of The Golf Club, stated that its intention in acquiring the real property "was to develop and sell memberships for use of the `Club Property.' To that end, The Golf Club has since sold approximately one hundred seventy-two (172) memberships allowing individuals to utilize the `Club Property' in accordance with the terms of the applicable Membership Agreements." Taking title to that real property with the intent of creating and selling memberships in the golf club does not qualify as taking title for the purpose of development and sale of the Property or any part of it.
The Golf Club argues that its acquisition of title to the golf course qualifies because it intended to sell the property if the golf course was not financially successful. Mr. Rummell stated in his affidavit that "in the event that such a goal [creating a `vibrant and collegial golf course and recreational community atmosphere'] no longer proved to be financially feasible or successful, at some future point in time, then The Golf Club intended to retain all rights to develop and sell the `Club Property' in a manner compliant with the CC & Rs." During his deposition, Mr. Rummell was asked if there were any plans to use the real property for something other than a golf course. He responded that there were no plans at this time, and added, "The only time that would come into play is if the golf course doesn't survive."
Finally, The Golf Club contends that its acquisition of the right to designate Expansion Property in the future qualifies it as a Successor Declarant under section 27.7. Section 22.1 of the CC & R's provides, "Declarant reserves the right ... to expand the effect of this Declaration to include all or part of the Expansion Property.... Declarant will have the unilateral right to transfer to any other person this right to expand by an instrument duly recorded." Black Rock Development and the Bank executed a document entitled "Assignment of Declarant Rights" in which Black Rock Development assigned "all its rights and interests as the Declarant" under the CC & R's to the Bank, which assignment was recorded on August 11, 2010. The Bank then assigned its right, title, and interest in the assignment to West Sprague, which in turn assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the assignment to The Golf Club. It argues that the right to designate future Expansion Property for the purpose of development and sale satisfies the requirements of section 27.7. That argument is not consistent with the CC & R's.
The Declarant can only develop and sell property that it owns. Therefore, the requirement that the Successor Declarant "takes [present tense] title to all or part of the Property ... for the purpose of development and sale" means that the Declarant must have the purpose of developing and selling the property to which the Declarant has taken title. The Golf Club has not taken title to as yet unknown Expansion Property.
The definition of "Expansion Property" in the CC & R's is "[s]uch additional real property now owned or in the future acquired by Declarant (including any Successor Declarant) as Declarant may make subject to the provisions of this Declaration, by duly recorded Declaration of Annexation." To qualify as Expansion Property, the property must have been owned by Black Rock Development when the CC & R's were recorded or must have been later acquired by the Declarant or Successor Declarant. The possibility of acquiring property in the future that may be developed and sold does not qualify as Expansion Property.
Section 2.47 defines "Property" as including "Expansion Property that may be incorporated in the Project from time to time and made subject to these Covenants pursuant to the provisions of this Declaration." Expansion Property must be incorporated into the Project and made subject to the CC & R's in order to become Property. It cannot be incorporated into the Project until it is owned by the Declarant. Section 1.3 states the right of the Declarant to expand the Project by adding Expansion Property.
Section 22.3 states how property is incorporated into the Project. It states, "Any expansion of the Project may be accomplished by recording a Declaration of Annexation and one or more supplemental Plats in the records of the Recorder of Kootenai County, Idaho, before the expiration of the Period of Declarant Control."
In summary, The Golf Club does not qualify as a Successor Declarant under section 27.7. It did not take title to Property for the purpose of sale and development. Because The Golf Club does not qualify as a Successor Declarant, it cannot exercise the rights or
Both sides seek an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to section 24.8 of the CC & R's, which provides:
Because the appellants are the prevailing party on appeal, they are entitled to an award of costs incurred, reasonable attorney fees, and legal assistant fees pursuant to section 24.8 of the CC & R's.
We reverse the judgment of the district court and its award of court costs and attorney fees. We remand this case with directions to enter a judgment consistent with this opinion. We award costs and attorney fees on appeal to the appellants.
Chief Justice BURDICK, Justices J. JONES, W. JONES, and HORTON, Concur.
