The legal battle over an effort to stop commercial development at the southeast corner of University Heights continued on Feb. 14 with post-trial arguments. A verdict on the validity of deed restrictions is yet to be issued.
Greene County Circuit Judge Derek Ankrom’s ruling will decide the enforceability of nearly 100-year-old restrictive covenants that prohibit the construction of anything other than a private residence in Springfield’s University Heights neighborhood.
Ankrom said he is being careful because his ruling has the potential to set legal precedents for future court cases across Missouri. He offered no expected date for the return of a verdict, but that he would not rush a ruling.
University Heights residents sued developers Be Kind & Merciful (BK&M) in December 2022 in an effort to stop the potential rezoning and commercial development at the corner of National Avenue and Sunshine Street. The rezoning case is still in limbo after BK&M withdrew its previous application and is now seeking a different zoning zoning classification for its property.
The Valentine's Day hearing was granted at the request of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, though all parties in the case were afforded an opportunity to underscore evidence presented at the January bench trial, provide closing arguments and plead for a judgment in their favor.
Ankrom raised concerns of his own, and commended the work of attorneys on both sides of the suit, adding that their arguments illustrated the uniqueness of the case. However, Ankrom remains undecided, and doesn’t anticipate authoring a ruling in the “immediate future,” describing the issue as “complex” and “fact-intensive.”
Ankrom, attorneys debate if University Heights has a common scheme
One of the primary topics of debate Wednesday was whether there is evidence of a common plan or scheme of improvement to maintain University Heights as a residential neighborhood. Attorneys sparred over the validity of when certain lots were deeded with restrictions, and by whom, and if foreclosures impacted restrictions or other limits on certain properties.
BK&M attorney Bryan Fisher said a common plan requires a common grantor, arguing that restrictions put in place by subsequent owners and the varying language in the neighborhood covenants is evidence of a lack of a common scheme.
“That’s a patchwork quilt that just has too many holes in it,” Fisher said.
Mark Fletcher, a plaintiff-intervenor in the case with his wife, Courtney Fletcher, argues University Heights is the product of a common scheme.
Ankrom appeared skeptical, suggesting the foreclosure of 44 properties in the wake of the Great Depression invalidated each of their restrictions, and that the subdivision of lots demonstrated an abandonment of the intent of a common scheme by the subdivision’s developer, Eloise Mackey.
Bryan Wade, attorney for a group of University Heights residents, said that foreclosures shouldn’t nullify deed restrictions. Wade argued there is “ample evidence” of a common scheme, including newspaper advertisements that promoted private residences in University Heights.
Use versus structure, changing circumstances
Ankrom contested case law the plaintiffs introduced that dealt with the deed restrictions that prohibited certain uses, rather than construction, and repeatedly emphasized that the covenants restricted construction of anything but a private residence, and don’t require that residence to be used as a single-family home. Wade argued that use and construction restrictions go “hand and glove.”
The parties also debated whether or not the changing of circumstances affects the enforceability of deed restrictions. In Fisher’s post-trial brief, he says that the “nature and character of the Subdivision along Sunshine Street and National Avenue has drastically altered and changed during the past century,” mainly attributing the change, and its alleged adverse impact of BK&M’s properties, to the increase in vehicle traffic over the years.
Wade recalled testimony from a Springfield city planner and realtor that residential homes were still viable on those properties, and suggested the high purchase price BK&M paid for home at the corner of National and Sunshine is evident of that.
“All you heard was ‘Wow, there’s a lot of traffic at National and Sunshine,’” Wade said.
While both parties posed arguments about new circumstances, a common scheme and the type of restriction in place — as well as the restrictions’ benefit to the plaintiffs and their reasonable lifetime — both plaintiff and defendant inferred it wouldn’t take much for Ankrom to rule in their favor.
Fisher said that “any doubt” of the covenants’ validity should result in free use of the property. Wade emphasized that he was only asking for Ankrom to determine the enforceability of restrictions on BK&M’s lots.
Ankrom called his impending decision a “close call,” and said he has a lot to consider in making a ruling
“I have not made up my mind yet,” Ankrom said.
More information on the suit can be found on Case.net, Missouri's online database for court cases.
MORE UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS REPORTING FROM THE DAILY CITIZEN
