SPRINGFIELD — A Missouri appeals court has affirmed a Greene Circuit Court ruling that neighborhood residents cannot enforce decades-old deed restrictions to block a proposed mixed-use development in Springfield’s University Heights subdivision, concluding that the restrictions had been waived through widespread, longstanding violations and non-enforcement.
In a decision filed July 2, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, upheld the trial court’s judgment in favor of BK&M, the developer that has acquired several lots at the corner of Sunshine Street and National Avenue for a planned project consisting of shopping, restaurants, offices and apartments.
The appellate court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s ruling, finding no merit in two of the residents’ claims, declining to consider two others because of procedural deficiencies and ruling that a fifth issue regarding standing was moot.
The lawsuit was brought by a group of University Heights property owners who sought a declaration that deed restrictions dating back to the subdivision’s original development in the 1920s prohibited BK&M from constructing anything other than private residences on the property.
The residents argued that restrictions placed in many of the original deeds by developer Eloise Mackey limited construction to private residences and imposed additional requirements regarding building materials and setbacks from property lines.
After a two-day bench trial, the Greene Circuit Court determined those deed-specific restrictions were no longer enforceable because they had effectively been waived.
The court found that the neighborhood itself had repeatedly violated the same restrictions over many decades and that property owners had acquiesced to those violations without attempting enforcement.
The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed with that conclusion.
According to the opinion, University Heights was platted in 1925 with 156 original lots.
Rather than placing restrictions on the subdivision plat itself, many of the original deeds contained varying combinations of restrictions, while some lots contained no restrictions at all.
The restrictions included provisions limiting construction to a private residence, requiring buildings to be constructed of brick, stone or stucco, establishing setback requirements and prohibiting the use of a “garagette” as a place of abode.
The appellate court noted that BK&M began purchasing property in the subdivision around 2020 and now owns several lots intended for redevelopment.
Residents sought to stop that project by arguing the deed restrictions remained enforceable against the developer.
Both the trial court and the appeals court focused heavily on evidence showing that the subdivision had changed substantially since its creation.
By the time of trial, the original 156 lots had been divided into parcels containing more than 300 homes. The record also showed that at least 69 additional structures, including detached garages, sheds and fences, had been built throughout the neighborhood.
In addition, the courts found there were well over 100 homes constructed, at least in part, with siding or other materials that did not comply with the original building material restrictions.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the restrictions governing private residences, building materials and setbacks were intended to function together as non-severable construction covenants.
Because those restrictions were interconnected, the courts concluded that widespread violations of one restriction undermined the enforceability of the others.
The opinion also noted that every appellant seeking to enforce the restrictions was found to be out of compliance with at least one of the deed covenants.
The trial court determined that each plaintiff’s original lot had been subdivided or otherwise contained additional structures beyond a single private residence, and some plaintiffs also had detached sheds, garages or similar structures that conflicted with the restrictions.
The appellate court held that this pattern of widespread and obvious violations supported the finding that the restrictions had been waived through continuous acquiescence by property owners.
The residents also argued that newspaper advertisements from the 1920s demonstrated an intent to allow later subdivision of the lots.
The appellate court rejected that argument, noting the trial court found the advertisements lacked credibility as evidence of the original developer’s intent because their connection to Eloise Mackey had not been established.
They contained statements the court found unreliable. The appellate court further agreed with the lower court that the phrase “a private residence” meant one residence on each originally deeded lot.
On appeal, the residents challenged the trial court’s conclusions in five separate points.
The Court of Appeals rejected the first two arguments on their merits, finding the residents had failed to challenge a key finding regarding Mackey’s intent and agreeing that widespread subdivision of lots constituted a waiver of the deed restrictions.
The court declined to consider the third and fourth arguments because the appellants did not properly present the required legal framework for challenging the weight of the evidence.
The fifth argument, concerning whether several plaintiffs had standing to sue in a representative capacity for revocable trusts, was declared moot because the court’s ruling that the restrictions were unenforceable resolved the underlying dispute.
Chief Judge Jennifer R. Growcock authored the unanimous opinion, joined by Judges Matthew P. Hamner and Bryan E. Nickell.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Greene Circuit Court in full, leaving intact the ruling that the challenged deed restrictions cannot be enforced against BK&M’s planned development.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District case number: SD38733
