A Springfield subdivision's deed restrictions were held waived and abandoned
A Springfield subdivision's deed restrictions were held waived and abandoned
2026-09-12 · Missouri · Courts
What happened. On 2 July 2026 the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed a judgment holding that a set of 1920s-era construction covenants over a Springfield neighbourhood had been waived and abandoned, and could not be enforced against a developer. The decisive facts were that the grantor had intended the restrictions to work as a single package, and that every homeowner suing to enforce them was violating them.1
The case is Dixie Sleight, et al. v. BK&M, LLC, et al., No. SD38733. Chief Judge Jennifer R. Growcock wrote; Judges Matthew P. Hamner and Bryan E. Nickell concurred. It came up from a two-day bench trial before Judge Derek Ankrom of the Greene County Circuit Court. Oral argument was heard on 31 March 2026 at Branson High School, under the Southern District's travelling-argument programme.
The restrictions
The grantor's deeds imposed a familiar cluster: one single private residence per lot, exterior materials limited to brick, stone or stucco, and setback requirements. The trial court found the grantor had intended those to operate together, quoting its own finding:
“Mrs. Mackey intended these restrictions, where more than one was used, to be tied together.”
That single finding is the hinge of the whole case, and it was not appealed.
The doctrine
The court restated settled Missouri law:
“A restriction upon land may be waived and abandoned by continuous acquiescence evidenced by persistent violations.”
And on whether a set of restrictions stands or falls together:
“Whether a contract is entire or severable is a question of intention, to be gathered from the language used and the subject matter of the agreement.”
“restrictive covenants are examined in the context of the entire instrument and not in just a single clause”
The findings that ended it
The trial court found, and the opinion records, that:
“No Plaintiff is in compliance with the Single Private Residence Covenant”
that the landowners, “by their inaction, acquiesced in continuous and widespread violation,” and that “such uniform noncompliance is significant enough to constitute waiver of the covenant scheme.”
The appellate point that decided the appeal
The appellants attacked the legal conclusion — that the scheme was unenforceable — without attacking the factual finding underneath it. The court held them to that choice:
“Having failed to challenge the trial court's finding that Mrs. Mackey intended for the Construction Covenants to 'to be tied together[,]' we must accept that finding as true.”
Once non-severability was accepted as true, waiver of one restriction carried the rest — and the standing question the appellants had raised became moot. The court also noted that an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge “requires completion of four sequential steps,” a requirement Missouri appellate courts enforce strictly.
Keep reading with the Missouri State Pass
The rest of this analysis — what an association can actually do, the recent bills and rulings, and how Missouri compares nationally — is for subscribers. $49/month for every Missouri topic on HOA Weekly.
$49/month, $449/year, or a $19.99 day pass.
What you unlock
- Read it next to the case that came out the other way
- What a Missouri board or trustee should take from the pair
- The structural point about Missouri
and 2 more sections in detail
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Recurring monthly subscription · Cancel anytime · Need help?
Related Missouri HOA Topics
Stay on top of Missouri HOA law
Every week: new Missouri legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.