an unreasonable period of time, thereby prejudicing SMC and rendering the covenant’s enforcement inequitable. See Mann v. Levin, 2004 VT 100, ¶¶ 26-27, 177 Vt. 261, 861 A.2d 1138 (setting forth elements of laches and equitable estoppel). The affirmative defenses were supported by a sworn affidavit of the resort’s planning manager, who stated that Smalley had engaged in numerous meetings with the resort to discuss golf-course issues during its year-long construction and had cooperated with construction personnel, yet failed to raise the restrictive covenant until a year after its completion. This was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to the fairness of allowing Smalley to assert the restrictive covenant. See Segerstrom v. Knott, 149 Vt. 391, 392-93, 543 A.2d 706, 707 (1988) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 22. The motion for summary judgment in this
holding affidavit attesting to authenticity of letter was proper summary judgment evidence holding that affidavit attesting to stipulated agreement between parties was sufficient to raise genuine issue of fact concerning affirmative defense holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship holding that defendants selfserving affidavit was sufficient to raise a factual issue to be resolved at trial