A garden fence with a roof is not a fence, South Dakota's court held
A garden fence with a roof is not a fence, South Dakota's court held
2026-09-19 · South Dakota · Courts
The other South Dakota covenant decision of this cycle runs the opposite way from Hood: a single neighbour sued, and won. Spring Canyon Properties, LLC v. Cal SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68, filed November 20, 2024, affirmed a finding that a garden enclosure violated a recorded covenant — and then reversed the piece of the injunction that went further than the covenant did.1
A covenant written for bighorn sheep
The property is Lot B at 9701 Clarkson Road outside Rapid City, in Pennington County. Its covenant is unusual enough to be worth quoting, because its stated purpose decided the case:
“The parties acknowledge that the area covered by these covenants are for the express purpose of allowing the free movement of big horn sheep in their wilderness preserve and to preclude any new fencing of areas, to preclude any building and storage in the areas designated as ‘No Build’ on the attached Exhibit A and to preclude any offensive colors on buildings. The purpose of this Covenant is to preserve open areas for wildlife migration and health, to preserve the general theme of the area and to provide for no build and no storage areas.”
Against a general ban on new fencing, one narrow exception was carved for Lot B: “Lot B shall be permitted to have a fenced area with a maximum dimension of 20' by 50' for cultivated gardening purposes (flowers or ‘victory garden’) within 10' of the existing water hydrant,” and “[a]ny fencing shall be wire mesh appropriate for protection of the growing areas and preserving visibility.”
What was built
Tina Roberts, who took sole control of Cal SD in April 2021, began a garden on Lot B in summer 2022. The structure was fenced with wire mesh on wooden posts — and carried overhead trusses supporting hail netting, standing taller than eight feet. None of that was disputed. Both sides agreed the covenant was unambiguous. They disagreed about one word.
The court reached for a dictionary
The covenant did not define “fence,” and South Dakota does not treat that as a gap to be construed against the drafter. Quoting Wilson v. Maynard, 2021 S.D. 37: “failing to define terms does not automatically result in an ambiguity,” and “[a]n undefined term in a restrictive covenant is not ambiguous if the term has a plain and ordinary meaning and that meaning can be defined.”
Then a methodological note the court stated openly: “In reviewing this Court's recent cases, we have consistently employed Merriam-Webster's dictionary to supply definitions for words with plain and ordinary meanings.” The definition it applied: a fence is “a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary . . . especially: such a barrier made of posts and wires or boards.”
The conclusion runs two sentences: “The structure that Roberts erected around her garden does not meet the definition of a fence. Fences do not include overhead trusses overhanging the enclosed area.”
The purpose clause did the confirming work
Roberts argued the exception permitted a cultivated and protected garden, so trusses and hail netting came with it. The court answered from the covenant's own recitals: the exception allows “protection of the growing area” but in a manner that “preserves visibility” in the open no-build areas, “does not disrupt the free movement of the big horns, and preserves the general theme of the neighborhood.”
That is worth isolating. In South Dakota, a purpose recital is not throat-clearing. It is the tiebreaker on a close reading of an operative clause, and here it converted a plausible argument into a losing one.
The reversal: an injunction may not exceed the covenant
Having found the violation, the circuit court ordered removal of the trusses, joists and crossbeams — and also enjoined Roberts from “rebuilding or placing any new structure in the ‘No Build’ zone that exceeds 8' in height as measured from ground level or violates the Restrictive Covenants.”
The Supreme Court cut the height cap out. Its reasoning is short and useful: “neither the restrictive covenant nor the Pennington County Ordinance contains any express limitation on the height of the allowed fence. Because the only issue before the circuit court related to the enforcement of the terms of the restrictive covenant, the circuit court erred when it imposed the eight-foot height restriction.”
The order was affirmed as to compliance and remanded with direction to strike the height restriction.
Read against Hood
The two cases are the frame for South Dakota covenant enforcement right now, and they are not in tension — they mark opposite ends of the same spectrum.
In Hood v. Straatmeyer, decided four months later, a covenant nobody had enforced since 1976 was cancelled outright. In Spring Canyon, an enforced covenant with a clear purpose clause produced an injunction against a structure that a reasonable owner might have thought was permitted. The variable is not the strength of the drafting. It is the enforcement record behind it.
An individual neighbour brought this suit. Spring Canyon Properties is another owner subject to the same covenant, not an association. South Dakota's governing statute page explains why owner-versus-owner enforcement is the state's default posture, and this is what a win in that posture looks like.
The remedy ceiling is real. An injunction enforces the covenant and stops there. A request for a prophylactic term the covenant does not contain — a height cap, a materials list, a setback — is the part likely to be struck on appeal, even where the underlying violation is affirmed. Our fences and exteriors page covers the substantive side of these restrictions.
What to watch next
The dictionary method is the portable holding, and it has an obvious next application: “structure,” “building,” “temporary,” “recreational vehicle” and “outbuilding” are the undefined terms that carry most covenant disputes, and South Dakota has now said plainly where it goes to define them. The question the opinion does not reach is what happens when a dictionary definition and a purpose clause point in opposite directions.
Related South Dakota HOA Topics
Stay on top of South Dakota HOA law
Every week: new South Dakota legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.