Grove Hill Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. William Rice and Laura Rice

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/10/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100293 Grove H i l l Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. v. W i l l i a m Rice and Laura R i c e Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900178) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g MOORE, J u d g e . T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f J u l y 29, 2 0 1 1 , i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d the following i s substituted therefor. 2100293 Grove Hill Association"), Court Homeowners' appeals ("the t r i a l from court") Association, a judgment declining enjoining maintaining a d r i v e w a y on t h e i r p r o p e r t y § 6.20 Covenants, o f t h e Grove Conditions, Rice Hill and of the Lee to issue injunction with William Inc. and a Laura ("the Circuit permanent Rice from t h a t does n o t c o m p l y Subdivision Declaration R e s t r i c t i o n s ("the of restrictive covenants"). This court. 609 i s the second See G r o v e Hill time t h i s case has been b e f o r e Homeowners' A s s ' n v. R i c e , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ("Grove H i l l " ) . I n Grove 43 So. 3d Hill, set f o r t h the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o the present 2 we appeal: " I n 2008, t h e R i c e s p u r c h a s e d p r o p e r t y a n d a h o u s e l o c a t e d i n t h e Grove H i l l s u b d i v i s i o n . On A p r i l 23, 2008, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e Rices welcoming them t o t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d . The Association attached a copy o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants t o the l e t t e r , which a l s o r e f e r r e d the r e a d e r t o a Web s i t e f o r f u r t h e r 'neighborhood information.' Section 6.20 of the restrictive covenants p r o v i d e s : "'6.20 Driveways and Sidewalks. A l l d r i v e w a y s and s i d e w a l k s f o r each L o t or D w e l l i n g s h a l l be c o n s t r u c t e d o f a s p h a l t o r c o n c r e t e . O t h e r m a t e r i a l s may be u s e d b u t o n l y i f approved by the [ A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review Committee]. A l l driveways and s i d e w a l k s s h a l l be p a v e d ; c h e r t , g r a v e l , and l o o s e s t o n e d r i v e w a y s and s i d e w a l k s a r e this 2100293 prohibited. Provided, however, t h a t t h e f o r e g o i n g s h a l l n o t be a p p l i c a b l e t o a n y o f the roadways w i t h i n t h e Development w h i c h may c o n s t i t u t e Common A r e a s . ' " ( B o l d t y p e f a c e i n o r i g i n a l . ) S e c t i o n 5.05(a) o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s s t a t e s t h a t no i m p r o v e m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g d r i v e w a y s , may be made t o t h e e x t e r i o r appearance o f any l o t w i t h o u t p r e a p p r o v a l of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w C o m m i t t e e ('the ARC'). "At t h e t i m e t h e R i c e s p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y , the construction o f t h e house had n o t been completed, t h e house had been abandoned b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r f o r f o u r months, a n d t h e h o u s e was i n foreclosure. The c o n t r a c t o r had b u i l t a narrow concrete d r i v e w a y running from t h e s t r e e t t o t h e house. W i l l i a m t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e time t h e R i c e s purchased the property, t h e d r i v e w a y was s t a i n e d w i t h r e d mud a n d c o n t a i n e d a l o n g c r a c k . No one f r o m t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o r t h e ARC i n s t r u c t e d t h e R i c e s t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y n e e d e d t o be r e p a i r e d o r r e m o d e l e d , b u t L a u r a t o l d W i l l i a m t h a t t h e y n e e d e d t o do s o m e t h i n g to c o r r e c t the 'eyesore.' " W i l l i a m t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o n s i d e r e d several o p t i o n s t o a d d r e s s t h e d r i v e w a y p r o b l e m , some o f w h i c h he c o n s i d e r e d t o o e x p e n s i v e and o t h e r s o f w h i c h he deemed i m p r a c t i c a l . The R i c e s d e c i d e d n o t to completely replace the driveway; instead, they d e c i d e d t o add a s e c o n d a r y pad t o t h e d r i v e w a y and t o t o p t h e d r i v e w a y w i t h l i q u i d a s p h a l t and l o o s e pea g r a v e l . [ ] U n d e r t h a t p l a n , t h e d r i v e w a y w o u l d 1 A s W i l l i a m t e s t i f i e d , t h e l a n d s c a p i n g company s p r a y e d h o t l i q u i d a s p h a l t over t h e c o n c r e t e base o f t h e d r i v e w a y and then shoveled loose g r a n i t e over the a s p h a l t l a y e r . That g r a n i t e was d e s c r i b e d i n t h e r e c o r d a s "pea g r a v e l . " A p p a r e n t l y , i t was i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e p e a g r a v e l w o u l d f a s t e n t o t h e a s p h a l t l a y e r a s i t d r i e d . However, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t some o f t h e pea g r a v e l was l o o s e f r o m t h e a s p h a l t l a y e r b y t h e t i m e o f trial. 1 3 2100293 r e t a i n i t s o r i g i n a l c o n c r e t e b a s e . They c o n t r a c t e d w i t h a l a n d s c a p i n g company, w h i c h p e r f o r m e d the work. I n v i o l a t i o n o f § 5.05 o f t h e restrictive c o v e n a n t s , t h e R i c e s d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e ARC and obtain its approval before undertaking the m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the driveway. " I n l a t e November o r e a r l y December 2008, J o h n P r i c e , t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n , r e c e i v e d an anonymous c o m p l a i n t a b o u t t h e d r i v e w a y . Barbara A r r i n g t o n , t h e p r o p e r t y manager, s e n t an e - m a i l t o William a s k i n g whether the driveway had been completed. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t the d r i v e w a y had been completed, P r i c e c o n t a c t e d J a c k Downs, t h e n c h a i r m a n o f t h e ARC, a b o u t t h e i s s u e . Downs i n s p e c t e d t h e d r i v e w a y and o p i n e d t o t h e members o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s b o a r d a t a December 2008 m e e t i n g t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h § 6.20. " I n J a n u a r y 2009, D i a n e T i l l e r y assumed t h e r o l e o f ARC c h a i r m a n f r o m Downs. T i l l e r y t a l k e d w i t h t h e R i c e s and showed them t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. T i l l e r y t e s t i f i e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h a t meeting, the Rices asked f o r a v a r i a n c e . Tillery agreed to discuss the matter with the ARC. The Rices t h e r e a f t e r s u b m i t t e d a s u r v e y o f 21 n e i g h b o r s , a l l of whom a p p r o v e d of the driveway, along with photographs of the driveway b e f o r e the m o d i f i c a t i o n s and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s . Tillery and t h e o t h e r f o u r members o f t h e ARC i n s p e c t e d t h e d r i v e w a y . The ARC s u b s e q u e n t l y met and unanimously d e c i d e d t h a t the d r i v e w a y d i d not comply w i t h § 6.20. T i l l e r y t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e ARC d i d n o t d i s c u s s g r a n t i n g the R i c e s a v a r i a n c e ; however, a l e t t e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 19, 2009, w h i c h t h e A s s o c i a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d i n t o evidence, i n d i c a t e s t h a t the ARC r e j e c t e d the R i c e s ' request f o r the v a r i a n c e . "Over t h e n e x t month, T i l l e r y e x c h a n g e d e - m a i l s and l e t t e r s w i t h t h e R i c e s and L a u r a ' s f a t h e r , an a t t o r n e y . The R i c e s s o u g h t a f a c e - t o - f a c e m e e t i n g 4 2100293 with the ARC to discuss their view that the m o d i f i c a t i o n s had a c t u a l l y i m p r o v e d t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e d r i v e w a y , b u t t h e ARC d i d not agree t o any ' a p p e a l . ' The A s s o c i a t i o n , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , s o u g h t information on t h e R i c e s ' p l a n s to remodel the d r i v e w a y i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 6.20. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g a l e t t e r from L a u r a ' s f a t h e r a s k i n g her to q u i t threatening the Rices, Tillery contacted the Association's attorney. That attorney filed a complaint against the Rices on A p r i l 7, 2009, seeking an i n j u n c t i o n and damages. The Rices a n s w e r e d on May 11, 2009, and c o u n t e r c l a i m e d for attorney fees under the Alabama Litigation A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ('the A L A A ' ) . See A l a . Code 1975, §§ 12-19-270 t o -276. "The trial c o u r t r e j e c t e d the Association's r e q u e s t f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n on May 20, 2009. The c a s e p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l on June 5, 2009. At the t r i a l , the A s s o c i a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d photographs showing l o o s e g r a v e l from the driveway s c a t t e r e d i n the s t r e e t . W i l l i a m a d m i t t e d t h a t l o o s e g r a v e l from t h e d r i v e w a y had g o t t e n o n t o t h e s t r e e t . Tillery t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e ARC was concerned about t h a t p r o b l e m as w e l l as t h e a e s t h e t i c d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e R i c e s ' d r i v e w a y and a l l t h e o t h e r d r i v e w a y s i n the neighborhood and i t s p o t e n t i a l impact on property values. Tillery testified that the A s s o c i a t i o n wanted the R i c e s to comply w i t h § 6.20 no m a t t e r t h e c o s t o r d i s r u p t i o n . W i l l i a m t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t w o u l d c o s t $15,000 t o make t h e c h a n g e s t h e A s s o c i a t i o n was d e m a n d i n g and t h a t t h e R i c e s had t a k e n no s t e p s t o change t h e d r i v e w a y . " 43 So. The 3d a t 611-12. trial determining court entered a t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y was judgment on "a c o n c r e t e July 14, 2009, driveway covered w i t h a s p h a l t and g r a v e l , a c o m b i n a t i o n n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d i n t h e 5 2100293 covenant," determining covenants, and Association. denying The judgment t o this this set court that the the relief Association court out on the driveway requested appealed August 11, standard conformed the 2009. for to by trial the court's In Grove issuing a the Hill, permanent injunction: "'To be e n t i t l e d t o a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n , a p l a i n t i f f must d e m o n s t r a t e s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s , a s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f the injunction i s not granted, t h a t the threatened i n j u r y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f o u t w e i g h s t h e harm the injunction may cause the defendant, and that g r a n t i n g the i n j u n c t i o n w i l l not d i s s e r v e the p u b l i c interest.'" 43 So. So. 3d a t 613 2d 1238, Holiday This 1242 Isle, court LLC ( A l a . 1999), v. Adkins, t h a t § 6.20 that demonstrated the trial 12 the contained Rices' r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s and, reversed I n c . v. W a r n i n g S y s . , overruled So. then determined t h a t the determining concluded ( q u o t i n g TFT, s u c c e s s on the t r i a l 3d trial on Inc., other 1173 grounds, (Ala. 2008)). c o u r t had erred i n a l a t e n t ambiguity, driveway violated § 6.20 and of t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the A s s o c i a t i o n the merits. c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and court to consider 43 So. 3d at 751 615. we the had We remanded t h e c a s e f o r "whether the A s s o c i a t i o n c a r r i e d 6 2100293 its burden of proving the remaining elements o b t a i n the permanent i n j u n c t i o n i t r e q u e s t e d . " necessary to Id. Upon remand, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y of a judgment in i t s favor. remand i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r 28, 2010, the trial The parties filed briefs r e s p e c t i v e a r g u m e n t s , and, court entered an order on May that stated, i n pertinent part: "Attorneys f o r the p a r t i e s appeared b e f o r e the Court f o r a h e a r i n g on A p r i l 30, 2010. The p a r t i e s have a g r e e d t h a t no e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i s r e q u i r e d t o comply w i t h the o r d e r remanding the case back t o the C i r c u i t Court. Therefore, the Court e n t e r s t h i s r u l i n g b a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d on J u l y 6, 2009. "The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s has t a s k e d t h e Circuit Court with determining whether [the A s s o c i a t i o n ] h a [ s ] met t h e r e m a i n i n g s t a n d a r d s as set f o r t h i n TFT, I n c . v. W a r n i n g S y s . , Inc., necessary for the issuance of a permanent injunction. "'To be e n t i t l e d t o a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n , a p l a i n t i f f must d e m o n s t r a t e s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s , a s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f the i n j u n c t i o n i s not granted, t h a t the t h r e a t e n e d i n j u r y to the p l a i n t i f f o u t w e i g h s t h e harm t h e i n j u n c t i o n may c a u s e the defendant, and that granting the i n j u n c t i o n w i l l not d i s s e r v e the p u b l i c interest.' "751 So. 2d 1238, 1242 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , H o l i d a y I s l e , LLC v. A d k i n s , 12 So. 3d 1173 ( A l a . 2008). The C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals 7 on 2100293 r u l e d t h a t [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] has i n d e e d s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s , and t h e r e f o r e f i r s t p r o n g o f t h e TFT t e s t . demonstrated has met the "However, [the Association] ha[s] a more d i f f i c u l t time meeting the second prong of the TFT s t a n d a r d s i n c e [ i t ] must show a s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f the i n j u n c t i o n i s not granted. The f a c t t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y i s d i f f e r e n t from other driveways i n the neighborhood i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o i n d i c a t e an i n j u r y o r a t h r e a t o f an injury. Ms. Diana T i l l e r y , the c h a i r of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review Committee, i n d i c a t e d t h a t the C o m m i t t e e b a s e d [ i t s ] d e c i s i o n on t h e b l a c k - l e t t e r w o r d i n g o f t h e c o v e n a n t . She d i d n o t m e n t i o n any a c t u a l or threatened i n j u r y to the Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n o r any i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t y owner. Ms. T i l l e r y a l s o s t a t e d t h a t the b a s i s of the d e c i s i o n was a e s t h e t i c s and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l o o s e s t o n e on the street. However, the president of the Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n , Mr. J o h n P r i c e , s t a t e d t h a t l o o s e s t o n e i n t h e common a r e a s o f t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d was acceptable. T h e r e was no t e s t i m o n y of any r e p o r t s o f damage o r i n j u r y i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d due t o l o o s e s t o n e on t h e s t r e e t . No w i t n e s s f o r [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] t e s t i f i e d about a decrease i n p r o p e r t y v a l u e s i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d due t o t h e d r i v e w a y . Mr. B i l l y C l e v e l a n d , the d e v e l o p e r of the s u b d i v i s i o n , s t a t e d t h a t the driveway would not a f f e c t p r o p e r t y value. Moreover, [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] d i d not produce e v i d e n c e t h a t [ t h e R i c e s ' ] i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o r s -¬ t h o s e who w o u l d be most a f f e c t e d by t h e d r i v e w a y ' s a e s t h e t i c v a l u e -- f o u n d t h e d r i v e w a y o b j e c t i o n a b l e . Therefore, a e s t h e t i c value i s the o n l y i n j u r y [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] h a [ s ] t r u l y a t t e m p t e d t o show, and t h e a e s t h e t i c v a l u e of the d r i v e w a y i s improved from the o r i g i n a l c o n d i t i o n of the driveway. "[The A s s o c i a t i o n ] 2d 1358 (Ala. 507 So. 2d 426 (Ala. r i g h t to enjoin [a] h a [ s ] c i t e d Tubbs v. B r a n d o n , 1 9 7 9 ) , and T a y l o r v. K o h l e r , 1987), f o r the t e n e t , 'The breach w i l l not depend 8 2100293 whether t h e c o v e n a n t e e w i l l be damaged b y t h e breach.' W h i l e n e i t h e r Tubbs n o r T a y l o r have been o v e r t u r n e d , l a t e r c a s e l a w s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e Alabama c o u r t s have n o t c o n t i n u e d t o s t r i c t l y f o l l o w t h a t p a r t i c u l a r h o l d i n g o f Tubbs. More modern c a s e l a w a d o p t s t h e r e l a t i v e h a r d s h i p t e s t as o u t l i n e d i n Lange v. S c o f i e l d , 567 So. 2d 1299, 1302 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) : '[A] c o v e n a n t w i l l n o t be e n f o r c e d i f t o do so w o u l d harm one l a n d o w n e r w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e n e f i t i n g a n o t h e r l a n d o w n e r . ' The h o l d i n g i n Lange e s s e n t i a l l y matches t h e t h i r d o f t h e f o u r prongs of the TFT t e s t f o r the issuance of a permanent injunction. "In t h i s i n s t a n c e , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t [the R i c e s ] d i d i n c u r t h e e x p e n s e s on t h e i r own, t h e i r o n l y f e a s i b l e o p t i o n w o u l d have been t o t e a r up t h e old d r i v e w a y and i n s t a l l a new one. Mr. Rice t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t w o u l d c o s t an e s t i m a t e d $15,000.00 t o t e a r up t h e d r i v e w a y and r e p l a c e i t . I f [ t h e R i c e s ] were r e q u i r e d t o change t h e c u r r e n t d r i v e w a y , t h e o n l y o p t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t w o u l d a l s o be t o t e a r up t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y and r e p l a c e i t e n t i r e l y , also at a cost o f $15,000.00. T h e r e was no t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g any o t h e r p o s s i b l e r e m e d i e s a t trial. E n f o r c i n g the covenant a g a i n s t [the Rices] as s t r i c t l y as [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] d e s i r e [ s ] w o u l d harm [ t h e R i c e s ] s u b s t a n t i a l l y more t h a n i t w o u l d b e n e f i t [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] . See L a n g e . M o r e o v e r , t h e a e s t h e t i c harm t o [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] i s f a r l e s s t h a n the monetary harm [the R i c e s ] would incur i n r e p l a c i n g the e n t i r e driveway. Therefore, [the A s s o c i a t i o n ] h a [ s ] n o t met t h e s e c o n d p r o n g o f t h e TFT s t a n d a r d . "The f o u r t h p r o n g o f t h e TFT s t a n d a r d i n v o l v e s d i s s e r v i c e to the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The p u b l i c i n t e r e s t w o u l d l i k e l y n o t be d i s s e r v e d b y g r a n t i n g t h i s i n j u n c t i o n . The o n l y p o s s i b l e members o f t h e p u b l i c t h a t w o u l d be a f f e c t e d b y a r u l i n g e i t h e r way i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d be p o t e n t i a l b u y e r s o f p r o p e r t y i n the s u b d i v i s i o n . Those p o t e n t i a l b u y e r s w o u l d 9 2100293 l i k e l y n o t be swayed one way o r t h e o t h e r i n t h e i r decision to purchase by the nature of the defendants' driveway. However, t h e y w o u l d a l s o l i k e l y n o t be swayed by a p l a i n c o n c r e t e d r i v e w a y . Therefore, [ t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] h a [ s ] met t h e f o u r t h p r o n g o f t h e TFT t e s t . "Judgment i s e n t e r e d for [the R i c e s ] . [The R i c e s ] have n o t p r o v e d damages u n d e r t h e L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Act. E a c h p a r t y i s t o b e a r i t s own c o s t s and f e e s . " ( F o o t n o t e and references On Ala. June 25, R. C i v . P., 2010, to the the record omitted.) Association motion, arguing filed t h a t the a Rule "relative-hardship t e s t " i s n o t t o be a p p l i e d i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f restrictive covenants. The A s s o c i a t i o n ' s m o t i o n , and the Rices' entered objection. an order Rices filed an neighborhood objection On allowing doctrine," postjudgment motion August the 20, 2010, parties agreement. The noting was that being kept Association p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on postjudgment motion S e p t e m b e r 23, 2010. filed S e p t e m b e r 8, was The to the the A s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d a response to the 30 trial days a d d i t i o n a l caselaw r e g a r d i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n of the hardships 59(e), denied the under a 2010. by to submit "relative- Association's advisement supplement The operation to by its Association's of A s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d a n o t i c e of 10 court law on appeal 2100293 t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t on O c t o b e r 29, 2010; that court t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s c o u r t , pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code On 1975. appeal, the Association argues t h a t the trial court e r r e d i n b a l a n c i n g the e q u i t i e s to determine whether i t should g r a n t t h e i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n . The A s s o c i a t i o n q u o t e s s e v e r a l o p i n i o n s i n w h i c h Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have s t a t e d t h a t " t h e mere b r e a c h o f t h e c o v e n a n t i s a sufficient basis B r a n d o n , 374 Ellis, 279 So. f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e by 2d 1358, A l a . 453, 186 1361 So. L a k e R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n v. 2010] ___ statement, issue in covenant So. 3d 2d 915 v. (1966)); Juliano, (Ala. Civ. v. ( c i t i n g Reetz ( A l a . 1979) Tubbs [Ms. App. see also Willow 2081099, A u g u s t 2010). B a s e d on 27, that t h e A s s o c i a t i o n c o n c l u d e s t h a t an i n j u n c t i o n must every is considerations. the ___ injunction." case in proven, We which a breach regardless disagree with that of of a restrictive any equitable general statement of law. I n Lange v. Scofield, 567 So. 2d 1299 ( A l a . 1990), supreme c o u r t e x p r e s s l y a d o p t e d t h e r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t , equitable doctrine that generally provides 11 that a our an restrictive 2100293 covenant "will n o t be e n f o r c e d i f t o do so w o u l d harm one landowner w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e n e f i t i n g another landowner." 567 So. 2d a t 1302 (citing R e a l P r o p e r t y § 679(3) 5 R i c h a r d R. Powell, (1987 r e v . e d . ) ) . The Under t h e Law of relative- h a r d s h i p t e s t as e x p r e s s e d i n L a n g e , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e breach of a restrictive covenant would r e q u i r e t h e i s s u a n c e o f an i n j u n c t i o n . not automatically As t h e supreme e x p l a i n e d i n Lange: "The f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n a p p l y i n g t h i s t e s t are well s t a t e d i n 20 Am. J u r . 2d Covenants, C o n d i t i o n s , & R e s t r i c t i o n s § 313, a t 876-77 ( 1 9 6 5 ) : "'Broadly speaking, the enforcement of building restrictions i s governed by equitable principles, and w i l l not be decreed i f , under the facts of the p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , i t w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e and u n j u s t The c o m p l a i n a n t ' s r i g h t t o i n s i s t on t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t must be c l e a r and s a t i s f a c t o r y "'The equitable enforcement of a r e s t r i c t i o n can be i n v o k e d o n l y f o r t h e purpose of p r o t e c t i n g the b e n e f i t which i t was t h e o b j e c t o f t h e c o v e n a n t t o a f f o r d . I f the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant has c e a s e d t o have any b e n e f i c i a l o r s u b s t a n t i a l v a l u e t o the ... p r o p e r t y , i t c a n f o r m no g r o u n d f o r equitable r e l i e f [ I ] f the defendant w i l l be s u b j e c t t o g r e a t h a r d s h i p o r t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e , r e l i e f w i l l be d e n i e d . ' " 12 court 2100293 567 So. 2d a t 1302. the equities, B a s e d on L a n g e , i f , upon a b a l a n c i n g of a c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e harm r e s u l t i n g to one l a n d o w n e r f r o m t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant w o u l d be c o n s i d e r a b l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e b e n e f i t r e c e i v e d by the landowner s e e k i n g e n f o r c e m e n t , a c o u r t may decline to a f f o r d the landowner seeking enforcement the e q u i t a b l e of an i n j u n c t i o n to covenant. 9 Richard 60.10[3] (Sept. agree w i t h applying the R. a breach of the restrictive Powell, Powell on Real Property § 2011). Nevertheless, we redress relief b a s e d on t h e s p e c i f i c facts in this the A s s o c i a t i o n that the t r i a l relative-hardship test. In case, court erred i n Lange, supra, a landowner purchased a r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s u b j e c t t o a r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t p r e c l u d i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f any b u i l d i n g s the unanimous c o n s e n t o f n e a r b y n e i g h b o r s . without When one n e i g h b o r o b j e c t e d t o t h e l a n d o w n e r ' s p l a n t o b u i l d a h o u s e on t h e l o t , t h e l a n d o w n e r s o u g h t d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f against the p r o s p e c t i v e enforcement of the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. So. 2d a t 1300. whether I n L a n g e , t h e supreme c o u r t d i d n o t the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t breaches a r e s t r i c t i v e a p p l i e s when a c o v e n a n t and a n e i g h b o r i n g 13 567 consider landowner landowner 2100293 seeks remedial court 66 enforcement of the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. expressly So. held 3d 257 that a addressed that s i t u a t i o n ( A l a . C i v . App. landowner covenant w i t h the test. this hardship actively i n M a x w e l l v. Boyd, In Maxwell, t h i s court breaches a restrictive a c t u a l knowledge or c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e of c o n t e n t of As who 2010). This covenant cannot invoke the court explained in relative-hardship Maxwell, the relative- t e s t r e s t s e n t i r e l y on e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s . 3d a t 261-62. This court further the 66 So. stated: " [ I ] t f o l l o w s t h a t seeking the i n v o c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e w i l l r e q u i r e the p o s s e s s i o n of c l e a n hands. "A pertinent specific application of the clean-hands d o c t r i n e i s t h a t a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant s h o u l d be e n f o r c e d i f t h e d e f e n d a n t had k n o w l e d g e [ o r c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e ] of i t b e f o r e constructing an i m p r o v e m e n t c o n t r a r y t o i t s p r o v i s i o n s , e v e n i f t h e harm i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e . " 66 So. In 3d a t 261. this case, made aware of 2008, l e t t e r neighborhood. the William covenants received testified upon receipt that of he the had April from the A s s o c i a t i o n welcoming the R i c e s The the been 23, to the r e c o r d f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t the R i c e s did not b e g i n the m o d i f i c a t i o n s had Rice t o the restrictive driveway u n t i l covenants. 14 Hence, after they the only 2100293 conclusion to be drawn is that the Rices altered their driveway w i t h c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e t h a t the combination of the m a t e r i a l s t h e y were a p p l y i n g d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h § 6.20 restrictive The of the covenants. dissent attempts to distinguish this case from M a x w e l l by a s s e r t i n g (1) t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e was n o t as c l e a r a v i o l a t i o n i s s u e as was in light covenant t o the covenant, Rices had (Bryan, not were driveway would dissent, court's been being the covenant r e v e r s e d by this trial warned made was not a that to during the We note court's restrictive the the driveway a time ___ first, latent the that driveway finding i n Grove H i l l . r e l y on t h a t f i n d i n g t o now particularly the the covenant. contained court at (2) t h a t , u n l i k e i n M a x w e l l , J., dissenting). that driveway and not comply w i t h restrictive the findings that c o n t a i n e d a l a t e n t a m b i g u i t y and modifications ___ covenant the v i o l a t i o n at i s s u e i n Maxwell, of the t r i a l conformed the of the r e s t r i c t i v e the So. as -- does that ambiguity Thus, we 3d -- decline at the the was to conclude t h a t the m o d i f i c a t i o n of clear covenant. 15 violation of the restrictive 2100293 M o r e o v e r , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , testimonial o r o t h e r w i s e , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e R i c e s were i n d o u b t whether their driveway covenant at issue. would conform to the as t o restrictive T h i s i s n o t a c a s e i n w h i c h a homeowner p r o c e e d e d t o c o n s t r u c t a s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t on h i s o r h e r p r o p e r t y b a s e d on an i n n o c e n t , m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n restrictive covenant application of or based the u n e q u i v o c a l l y as on covenant; some c o n f u s i o n as rather, William of a to the testified follows: " [ C o u n s e l f o r t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ] : Okay. D i d you c o n s i d e r any o f t h e r u l e s i n t h e c o v e n a n t s b e f o r e you made t h e d e c i s i o n t o i m p r o v e y o u r d r i v e w a y ? " [ W i l l i a m ] : No, sir." A d d i t i o n a l l y , W i l l i a m t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t s e e n any o t h e r gravel driveways that, despite with materials subdivision, modification i n the knowing that different they plan neighborhood. did from their every not seek other driveway preapproval Architectural ("the A R C " ) , i n c l e a r v i o l a t i o n o f § 5.05 covenants. The Rices admitted d r i v e w a y w o u l d be m o d i f i e d from the The Rices simply f a i l e d Review of i n the their Committee of the restrictive to take the restrictive covenants i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n before m o d i f y i n g the driveway. 16 2100293 With r e g a r d t o the d i s s e n t ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e R i c e s had n o t b e e n w a r n e d t h a t t h e i r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d r i v e w a y was i n violation (Bryan, the of the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, So. J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) , we n o t e t h a t t h e l a w does n o t p l a c e onus violators on the enforcer thereof particularly that of r e s t r i c t i v e they may i n circumstances such not covenants be in as t h o s e c a s e , where t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s r e q u i r e gain preapproval such 3d a t o f any improvements. preapproval, avoided. any resulting compliance, i n the present homeowners t o Had t h e R i c e s damages t o warn could obtained have been We n o t e a l s o t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d suggesting t h a t t h e members o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n were aware o f the R i c e s ' violation of the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants during m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d r i v e w a y and f a i l e d t o warn t h e R i c e s that violation. the of 2 J o h n P r i c e , who was on t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n when t h e d r i v e w a y was m o d i f i e d , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had o b s e r v e d t h e d r i v e w a y f o r s e v e r a l months when p a s s i n g b y the R i c e s ' p r o p e r t y . P r i c e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was u n d e r t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y was n o t y e t c o m p l e t e d . That t e s t i m o n y does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t P r i c e knew t h a t t h e R i c e s i n t e n d e d t o l e a v e t h e d r i v e w a y i n a permanent c o n d i t i o n t h a t w o u l d v i o l a t e § 6.20. 2 17 2100293 The rise d i s s e n t a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t t h e R i c e s ' c o n d u c t does to the level misconduct." of So. "morally 3d a t reprehensible, (Bryan, evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t the R i c e s good improve to modifying the restrictive driveway covenants improper motive. that the violates the out constructive restrictive restrictions, Gladstone v. the 66 notice that spite, Gregory, 95 i l l will, by violate supra, So. of 3d act in Nev. a he 262. "[w]here and when which at or landowner or she That one takes a one-story land violation 480, thereof 596 P.2d limitation before " 491, a d d i n g s e c o n d s t o r y o n t o home were n o t to balancing of e q u i t i e s under r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p The f a c t remains t h a t the R i c e s , the restrictive with covenants, d i d not 18 the 495 notice entitled test). constructive notice consult not beginning construction the with good c o n s c i e n c e w i l l 474, building has holding (1979) ( h o l d i n g t h a t homeowners w i t h o n l y c o n s t r u c t i v e of the other applies equity to property not in court held i n Maxwell, maxim t h a t person intended their did We any covenant notice. with permit of of they doctrine coincides of that However, t h i s clean-hands a aesthetics and willful J., dissenting). agree t h a t the faith not covenants of or 2100293 otherwise seek permission from the Association before c o n s t r u c t i n g a driveway d i f f e r e n t from a l l the other driveways in notice the neighborhood. the r e s t r i c t i v e Because By proceeding despite the Rices had covenants before they invoke consequences of of covenants, the R i c e s are w i t h o u t c l e a n hands. restrictive cannot their the their constructive notice of they a c t i v e l y breached § relative-hardship test breach. 3 When t h e to avoid the 6.20, the relative-hardship F o r t h a t r e a s o n , we f i n d no n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e d i s s e n t ' s argument t h a t the e q u i t i e s of the case f a v o r the R i c e s . So. 3d a t . We do n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t , i n Lange v. S c o f i e l d , o u r supreme c o u r t e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e evidence showed t h a t the p r o p o s e d house t h a t would v i o l a t e the restrictive covenant would not appreciably increase the d e n s i t y o f t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d and w o u l d be " c o n s i s t e n t i n s i z e , d e s i g n , and o v e r a l l q u a l i t y " w i t h t h e o t h e r h o u s e s i n t h e neighborhood. 567 So. 2d a t 1301. Our r e s e a r c h has r e v e a l e d no A l a b a m a c a s e i n w h i c h an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t has a p p l i e d t h e r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t t o a l l o w a homeowner t o v i o l a t e an unambiguous r e s t r i c t i v e covenant i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n an improvement t h a t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the d e s i g n of a l l o t h e r s i m i l a r i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e same s u b d i v i s i o n , e v e n i f t h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t d e s i g n may be c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l l y a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing. 3 I n L a n g e , t h e supreme c o u r t a l s o e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e l o t a t i s s u e i n t h a t c a s e w o u l d be " a l m o s t w i t h o u t v a l u e " i f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t was e n f o r c e d . 567 So. 2d a t 1302. That i s n o t t h e c a s e h e r e , where e n f o r c e m e n t o f § 6.20 w o u l d n o t p r e v e n t t h e R i c e s f r o m u s i n g t h e i r p r o p e r t y as a r e s i d e n c e i n t h e same manner as t h e i r n e i g h b o r s . F i n a l l y , i n L a n g e , t h e a d j o i n i n g l o t owner who sought enforcement of the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant c o u l d not prove t h a t 19 2100293 test does not any presented apply, other r e s t r i c t i v e covenant, provides a relief. 9 R. irreparable sufficient Powell, harm f r o m and the valid offending defense the basis f o r the supra, the § breach Willow So. ; see 60.10[3] ("The 3d a t g r a n t i n g of 60.10[3]. subject property. Juliano, enforcement a v i o l a t i o n of the r e s t r i c t i v e r e g a r d l e s s of whether the breach of to landowner of a The has not of the covenant injunctive law presumes restrictive covenant a c t u a l l y enhances the Lake R e s i d e n t i a l a l s o 9 R. value Ass'n Powell, supra, f a c t t h a t the burdened p r o p e r t y w i l l v. § increase she w o u l d r e c e i v e any b e n e f i t f r o m t h e e n f o r c e m e n t . 567 So. 2d a t 1302. In t h i s case, the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants are i n t e n d e d t o , among o t h e r t h i n g s , " e s t a b l i s h and p r e s e r v e a harmonious design f o r the development " Grove Hill Subdivision Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and R e s t r i c t i o n s , § 5.05. I n T u r n e r v. S e l l e r s , 878 So. 2d 300 (Ala. C i v . App. 2003), t h i s c o u r t noted t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n restrictive covenants t h a t are consistently applied and f o l l o w e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e n e f i t a l l the landowners w i t h i n the subdivision by d e f i n i n g and controlling the acceptable d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p r o p e r t y t h e r e i n . 878 So. 2d a t 306. Just as i n T u r n e r , t h e A s s o c i a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d l o s e t h a t b e n e f i t i f t h e R i c e s ' d r i v e w a y was a l l o w e d t o s t a n d . 878 So. 2d a t 306 ("To d a t e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d , t h e C o m m i t t e e has not allowed any other variances from the restrictive covenants. S h o u l d an e x c e p t i o n be p e r m i t t e d i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e w o u l d be no r e a s o n why n e i g h b o r s who have s i m i l a r d r o p ¬ o f f s i n t h e b a c k o f t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s s h o u l d n o t be g i v e n similar relief from the restrictive covenant, thereby d e f e a t i n g the purpose of having the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants."). 20 2100293 in value i f sufficient."). the restriction is not The l a w c a n n o t a d e q u a t e l y enforced address so an i n j u n c t i o n must i s s u e t o remedy t h e b r e a c h is t h a t harm, even i f t h a t i n j u n c t i o n causes the o f f e n d i n g landowner g r e a t expense. Maxwell, As not See 66 So. 3d a t 262. thoroughly e x p l a i n e d by R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n v. J u l i a n o , this a case court i n Willow i n which the Lakes relative- h a r d s h i p t e s t was n o t a t i s s u e : "As to the former finding -that the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the steps a c t u a l l y enhanced the v a l u e o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n -- t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no competent evidence as to the e f f e c t of the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s t e p s on t h e v a l u e o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n p r o p e r t y . The A s s o c i a t i o n m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t any v i o l a t i o n o f a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant, i f a l l o w e d over i t s o b j e c t i o n , n e c e s s a r i l y d i l u t e s t h e power o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s and t h e r e b y l e s s e n s t h e v a l u e o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n p r o p e r t y . We a g r e e . In c r e a t i n g the restrictive covenants, the p a r t n e r s h i p e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e c o v e n a n t s was ' t o p r o t e c t t h e v a l u e and d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e P r o p e r t y . ' Any unauthorized violation of the restrictive c o v e n a n t s would r u n c o u n t e r t o t h a t p u r p o s e and w o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d as ' i r r e p a r a b l e harm' as a m a t t e r o f l a w . See Tubbs v. B r a n d o n , 374 So. 2d 1358, 1361 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . Thus, t h e s t e p s , i f a l l o w e d to stand i n v i o l a t i o n of the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, decrease the value of the s u b d i v i s i o n property. " M o r e o v e r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t i s i m m a t e r i a l whether the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the steps actually increased the value of the s u b d i v i s i o n property. 'When a r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t i s b r o k e n , [ o u r supreme 21 2100293 court] has s t a t e d t h a t an i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d be i s s u e d b e c a u s e t h e mere b r e a c h o f t h e c o v e n a n t i s a s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e by i n j u n c t i o n . The r i g h t t o e n j o i n s u c h a b r e a c h w i l l n o t d e p e n d upon whether the covenantee w i l l be damaged by the b r e a c h . ' Tubbs v. B r a n d o n , 374 So. 2d a t 1361 ( c i t i n g R e e t z v. E l l i s , 279 A l a . 453, 186 So. 2d 915 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ) . As e x p l a i n e d by o u r supreme c o u r t , "'the reasons f o r t h i s r u l e are s t a t e d to be t h a t t h e owner o f l a n d , when s e l l i n g t o a n o t h e r , may i n s i s t on s u c h c o v e n a n t s as he p l e a s e s t o u c h i n g i t s use and has t h e r i g h t t o d e f i n e t h e i n j u r y f o r h i m s e l f ; and t h a t , when t h e c o v e n a n t i s b r o k e n , an i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d i s s u e because, from the v e r y n a t u r e of the case, the remedy at law is inadequate.' " R e e t z , 279 A l a . a t 460, 186 So. 2d a t 921. The t r i a l court's reasoning would i m p e r m i s s i b l y allow individual homeowners to violate restrictive c o v e n a n t s i f t h o s e homeowners were s u b j e c t i v e l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t the v i o l a t i o n would improve the value of the s u b d i v i s i o n p r o p e r t y . That r e a s o n i n g d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s t h e l a w t h a t 'a p a r t y t o a c o v e n a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o seek i t s enforcement even i f the ... b r e a c h does n o t n e g a t i v e l y i m p a c t t h e v a l u e o f h i s p r o p e r t y . ' V i k i n g P r o p s . , I n c . v. Holm, 155 Wash. 2d 112, 121 n.4, 118 P.3d 322, 327 n.4 (2005). Therefore, the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the steps enhanced the value of the subdivision p r o p e r t y and i n d e n y i n g t h e A s s o c i a t i o n r e l i e f on that basis." So. 3d a t . In the p r e s e n t case, the A s s o c i a t i o n , h a v i n g proven the Rices breached an unambiguous w h i c h t h e y had n o t i c e , was restrictive covenant e n t i t l e d to the enforcement of 22 that of that 2100293 restrictive grant the based on covenant. 4 Because the permanent i n j u n c t i o n r e q u e s t e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of the court's j u d g m e n t and court by the remand t h e We we cause f o r the e n t r y of f o r such f u r t h e r matter. APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF JULY 29, 2011, and Association the p r o c e e d i n g s as a r e n e c e s s a r y t o c o n c l u d e t h i s Pittman to therefore reverse a j u d g m e n t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n and OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND declined relative-hardship test, conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d . trial trial WITHDRAWN; REMANDED. Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r B r y a n , J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h w r i t i n g , w h i c h Thompson, P.J., joins. On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , t h e R i c e s c o m p l a i n t h a t t h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n e f f e c t i v e l y negates the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t , l e a v i n g i t no f i e l d o f o p e r a t i o n . We d i s a g r e e . As was h e l d i n Lange v. S c o f i e l d , a l a n d o w n e r who p u r c h a s e s p r o p e r t y with actual knowledge of a restrictive covenant may nevertheless invoke e q u i t y t o a v o i d t h a t covenant i f the c o v e n a n t no l o n g e r s e r v e s any s u b s t a n t i a l b e n e f i c i a l p u r p o s e and i t s p r o s p e c t i v e e n f o r c e m e n t w o u l d c a u s e undue harm t o t h e covenantee. 567 So. 2d a t 1302. See a l s o J o h n s o n v. H.J. R e a l t y , 698 So. 2d 781, 783 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) (voiding r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t r e q u i r i n g l a n d t o be u s e d f o r a u t o m o b i l e d e a l e r s h i p where t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n w o u l d n o t benefit adjoining landowners and would render property b a s i c a l l y unmarketable). 4 23 2100293 BRYAN, J u d g e , 1 dissenting. respectfully Association, Inc. dissent. ("the Grove Association"), injunction enjoining maintaining a d r i v e w a y i n v i o l a t i o n of In our opinion recited the in William the standard Hill first for Rice appeal Homeowners' sought and a permanent Laura Rice restrictive in this covenants. case, i s s u i n g a permanent from this court injunction: "'To be entitled to a permanent i n j u n c t i o n , a p l a i n t i f f must d e m o n s t r a t e s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s , a s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y i f the i n j u n c t i o n i s not g r a n t e d , t h a t the t h r e a t e n e d i n j u r y to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the i n j u n c t i o n may cause the defendant, and that granting the injunction will not d i s s e r v e the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . ' "TFT, I n c . v. W a r n i n g S y s . , I n c . , 751 So. 2d 1238, 1242 (Ala. 1999), overruled on other grounds, Holiday I s l e , LLC v . A d k i n s , 12 So. 3d 1173 (Ala. 2 00 8)." Grove H i l l Homeowners' A s s ' n v. Civ. 2010) App. concluded that ("Grove the Rice, Hill"). In Association had 43 So. 613 (Ala. Hill, this court established the first Grove 3d 609, element of the p e r m a n e n t - i n j u n c t i o n s t a n d a r d , i . e . , s u c c e s s the merits. j u d g m e n t and 43 So. 3d at remanded the 615. We reversed case f o r the 24 trial the trial court to on court's consider 2100293 whether the elements In the A s s o c i a t i o n had of the outlined test permanent-injunction i t s j u d g m e n t on third element above discussed 1990). remand, the of the restrictive "essentially Lange v. court then s u b s t a n t i a l l y more t h a n consequently, denied judgment, court observed standard the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p 567 So. determined the that 2d that Rices 12 99 (Ala. enforcing would the harm them i t would b e n e f i t the A s s o c i a t i o n the the trial Scofield, against three standard. matches" in covenants remaining permanent-injunction trial The court's e s t a b l i s h e d the injunction. main opinion In r e v e r s i n g the concludes that and, trial the Rices cannot invoke the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i pt e s t because the R i c e s constructive notice violation of the hardship test of the covenants i s very restrictive occurred. similar permanent-injunction standard instructed court the t h a t the t r i a l in determining trial doctrine that to However, the third this apply. whether the to enforce main precludes opinion the the I do application 25 that of the a relativeof i n Grove restrictive concludes before element court Thus, the c o u r t e r r e d i n b a l a n c i n g the harms or Essentially, hands to covenants had not the Hill think hardships covenants. the clean- relative- 2100293 hardship t e s t when a p a r t y covenant had knowledge of I not apply clean-hands would bright-line the test doctrine "'finds misconduct'" Golf in cases such are a before doctrine restrictive violating i t . to establish as this one. in specific clean-hands acts of reprehensible of Alabama, v. the level would of hold knowledge the morally that of a whether one and East 581 a party concluding test N.W.2d rather as than 170, 176 that i n applying i t would built be a cabin 26 (S.D. (quoting 746, 287 misconduct. I factor holding 1 998) violating Gadsden to consider a known does not r i s e willful should covenant "knew t h a t he was o w n e r who conduct the a p p l i c a t i o n of the t e s t . f a c t o r to consider property court a restrictive relative-hardship Peska, Rices' reprehensible, trial knowledge p r e c l u d e s v. The willful to 291 A l a . 7 2 7 , (1973)). 924, LLC as S t e r l i n g O i l o f Oklahoma, I n c . v. Pack, 864 2d The a relative- ( A l a . 2007 ) 2d 8 4 7 , So. from 932 So. 985 covenant "'morally Developers Inc., relief the a p p l i c a t i o n of the expression that Retail Club, the rule precluding hardship facts.'" seeking a party's in applying that See such Harksen (stating that the covenant" was the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t inequitable in violation to of require a restrictive 2100293 covenants to violating In apply, So. remove the the main o p i n i o n the (Ala. Civ. are distinguishable Maxwell, the enforcement clearly he knew Boyds, of a violated relative-hardship relies 257 Maxwell although he does i n part App. that not on M a x w e l l v . B o y d , the homeowners restrictive 66 However, 2010). from the facts in in this facts case. In seeking covenant, the r e s t r i c t i v e test to avoid the a garage that built covenant. The Boyds d i d not contend that the garage complied w i t h the r e s t r i c t i v e or was the covenants). concluding that 3d cabin the r e s t r i c t i v e ambiguous." 66 So. covenant 3d a t 2 6 1 . was While b u i l d i n g Boyds were warned numerous t i m e s t h a t comply with the garage "of d o u b t f u l restrictive covenant meaning or the garage, the the s t r u c t u r e would not regardless. Conversely, whether the R i c e s ' covenants and ambiguity. to the question in this covenant, case, the covenants The q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r regarding parties driveway a c t u a l l y v i o l a t e d whether restrictive the but covenants built hotly the disputed a the R i c e s ' driveway is not as clear-cut As the restrictive contained conformity i n Maxwell. 27 they we latent conformed as the noted in 2100293 Grove Hill, covenants the t r i a l contained court a determined latent ambiguity driveway conformed to the covenants. Although this Grove H i l l , the Rices court driveway. the Rices' 43 S o . 3d a t 6 1 3 , 6 1 5 . court's court judgment initially the r e s t r i c t i v e repeatedly warned in ruled that covenants suggests d i dnot a c t reprehensibly i n c o n s t r u c t i n g Further, unlike the situation not the r e s t r i c t i v e and t h a t the t r i a l the fact that the t r i a l that the Rices were reversed had not v i o l a t e d that their i n Maxwell, the Rices against constructing their driveway. In concluding applied i n favor that the relative-hardship test of the Rices, the t r i a l court should implicitly r e j e c t e d t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s unclean-hands argument. a trial court concerning trial Woodland Ass'n, Marina, "The an i s s u e , court judgment, does not make specific made those unless such findings findings necessary are 947 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 9 I n c . v. Reach, to 28 hands fact erroneous.'" Cemetery (quoting 567 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 2 , 1324 the clean of support i t s G r o v e Cmty. ( A l a . 2006) "'[W]here assume t h a t t h e clearly Grove B a p t i s t Church v. Woodland a p p l i c a t i o n of findings [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] w i l l be doctrine Sundance ( A l a . 1990 ) ) . i s a matter 2100293 within the Bonding the sound Co. facts rejecting v. Hayes, of the u n c l e a n hands. invoking d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l the this 748 case, So. the Rices' clean-hands 198, the Rices would did not that the Rices' a c t i o n s do n o t r i s e doctrine, of the err have to the l e v e l the trial the r e s t r i c t i v e in of court covenants harm them s u b s t a n t i a l l y more t h a n i t judgment a p p l y i n g Thus, I would a f f i r m the trial the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t i n favor Rices. Thompson, P . J . , and Bail Given court would b e n e f i t the A s s o c i a t i o n . court's ( A l a . 1999). trial c o r r e c t l y determined that enforcing against 199 J & M argument Association's The 2d court." concurs. 29

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.