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

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/29/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 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) MOORE, J u d g e . Grove Hill Association"), Court appeals ("the t r i a l injunction Homeowners' from court") enjoining Association, I n c . ("the a judgment o f t h e Lee C i r c u i t declining William Rice to issue and Laura a permanent Rice from 2100293 maintaining with 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 o f t h e G r o v e Covenants, Conditions, Hill t h a t does n o t c o m p l y Subdivision and R e s t r i c t i o n s Declaration of ("the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants"). This court. 609 i s t h e second time t h i s See G r o v e H i l l 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 " ) . this 43 So. 3 d I n G r o v e H i l l , we s e t 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 p r e s e n t 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 G r o v e H i l l s u b d i v i s i o n . On A p r i l 2 3 , 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 w e l c o m i n g 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 o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants p r o v i d e s : "'6.20 Driveways and Sidewalks. A l l driveways and s i d e w a l k s f o r each L o t o r 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 only i f approved by t h e [ 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 a n d s i d e w a l k s a r e 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 2 2100293 a p p e a r a n c e o f any l o t w i t h o u t p r e a p p r o v a l 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 A R C ' ) . of the "At the t i m e the R i c e s p u r c h a s e d the p r o p e r t y , the construction of the house had not been completed, t h e house h a d b e e n a b a n d o n e d by the c o n t r a c t o r f o r f o u r months, and t h e h o u s e was i n f o r e c l o s u r e . The c o n t r a c t o r had b u i l t a narrow c o n c r e t e driveway r u n n i n g from the s t r e e t t o the house. W i l l i a m t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t the time the 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 , t h e d r i v e w a y was stained w i t h r e d mud and 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 s e v e r a l 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 c o m p l e t e l y r e p l a c e the d r i v e w a y ; i n s t e a d , they d e c i d e d t o add a s e c o n d a r y p a d 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 would 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 of the r e s t r i c t i v e 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 the driveway. 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. After receiving information that 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 ^ 3 s ^ -,4- -n,^ ^^y^'U^ 2100293 2008 m e e t i n g t h a t t h e § 6.20. driveway d i d not comply with " 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 variance. 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 o f whom a p p r o v e d o f 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 of the m o d i f i c a t i o n process. T i l l e r y and the 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 u n a n i m o u s l y 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 introduced 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 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 to 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 i n f o r m a t i o n 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 Laura'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 injunction 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. 4 2100293 "The trial court 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 introduced photographs showing l o o s e g r a v e l from t h e 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 the driveway had g o t t e n onto the s t r e e t . T i l l e r y t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e ARC was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t 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 the 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 w a n t e d t h e R i c e s t o c o m p l y 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 d c o s t $15,000 t o make t h e A s s o c i a t i o n was demanding 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. 3d a t 611-12. The trial determining court entered a judgment on J u l y t h a t t h e d r i v e w a y was "a c o n c r e t e 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 covenant," and t h a t and denying t h e driveway conformed t o t h e covenants the r e l i e f requested A s s o c i a t i o n appealed the t r i a l on August standard 1 1 , 2009. by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n . court's I n Grove H i l l , judgment t o t h i s this court court s e t out the f o r i s s u i n g a permanent i n j u n c t i o n : "'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 threat of irreparable i n j u r y i f the injunction i s not granted, that 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 t h e injunction may cause the defendant, and t h a t 5 The 2100293 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 ( q u o t i n g TFT, LLC ( A l a . 1999), v. Adkins, overruled 12 So. then determined t h a t the determining t h a t § 6.20 concluded that the contained Rices' r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s and, demonstrated success reversed I n c . v. W a r n i n g S y s . , the t r i a l the trial its burden on trial 1173 of a in of the merits. 43 the So. 3d at i t s favor. The elements a motion f o r the parties filed pertinent an order that on stated, 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 enters this 6 to entry briefs entered court carried Id. 28, trial We necessary r e s p e c t i v e a r g u m e n t s , and, the had remanded t h e c a s e f o r "whether the A s s o c i a t i o n remaining we the 615. remand i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r 2010, and 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 remand, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d judgment erred i n 6.20 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 . " On 2008)). c o u r t had § 751 grounds, (Ala. violated c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and proving other a l a t e n t ambiguity, driveway court to consider of 3d on Inc., on May in 2100293 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 tasked the 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 s e t 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 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 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 . 1999), 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 (Ala. 2008). The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s 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 d e m o n s t r a t 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 has met the f i r s t p r o n g o f t h e TFT t e s t . "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 7 2100293 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 driveway 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 ] h a [ s ] c i t e d Tubbs v. B r a n d o n , 573 So. 2d 1358 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , and T a y l o r v. K o h l e r , 507 So. 2d 426 ( A l a . 1987), f o r the t e n e t , 'The r i g h t to enjoin [a] b r e a c h w i l l n o t d e p e n d on whether the covenantee w i l l be damaged by the breach.' W h i l e n e i t h e r Tubbs n o r T a y l o r have b e e n 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 the 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 L a n g e v. S c o f i e l d , 567 So. 2d 1299, 1302 (Ala. 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 the t h i r d of the 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, their o n l y f e a s i b l e o p t i o n w o u l d have b e e n t o t e a r up t h e old d r i v e w a y and install 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 8 2100293 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 of $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 R i c e s ] as s t r i c t l y as [the A s s o c i a t i o n ] d e s i r e [ s ] would 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 m o n e t a r y harm [the R i c e s ] would i n c u r in 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 standard. "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 public 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 by 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 by 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 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 f o r [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 . " (Footnote and references On Ala. June 25, R. C i v . P., 2010, to the the record Association motion, arguing omitted.) filed a Rule 59(e), t h a t the " r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p 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 n e i g h b o r h o o d 9 2100293 restrictive covenants. The Rices filed a reply to the A s s o c i a t i o n ' s m o t i o n , and t h e A s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d a r e s p o n s e t o the R i c e s ' r e p l y . an order allowing On A u g u s t 20, 2010, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d the p a r t i e s 30 days t o submit a d d i t i o n a l caselaw regarding the a p p l i c a t i o n of the "relative-hardships doctrine," noting that the A s s o c i a t i o n ' s postjudgment was b e i n g k e p t u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t by agreement motion of the p a r t i e s . The A s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d a s u p p l e m e n t t o i t s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on September was 8, 2010. The A s s o c i a t i o n ' s d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n The A s s o c i a t i o n postjudgment o f l a w on September filed a notice 23, motion 2010. of a p p e a l t o the Alabama Supreme C o u r t on O c t o b e r 29, 2 0 1 0 ; t h a t c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. On appeal, the A s s o c i a t i o n e r r e d "by f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h a t second prong will suffer Association o f t h e TFT irreparable cites argues that the t r i a l [the A s s o c i a t i o n ] s t a n d a r d because injury as s a t i s f i e d the [the a matter of Association] law." W i l l o w L a k e R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n v. [Ms. 2081099, A u g u s t 27, 2010] ___ So. 3d ___ c a s e s when r e s t r i c t i v e The Juliano, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t an i n j u n c t i o n must be in court issued c o v e n a n t s have b e e n v i o l a t e d . 10 In 2100293 W i l l o w Lake, r e s i d e n t s o f t h e W i l l o w Lake s u b d i v i s i o n a s e r i e s of steps leading from t h e i r property t o t h e edge o f a l a k e i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n on a common a r e a b o r d e r i n g ___ So. 3d a t ___ . With regard to the t r i a l that the construction of the steps subdivision property, this court erected the lake. court's enhanced t h e value finding of the stated: "As t o the former finding -that the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e 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 t o t h e e f f e c t of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the steps on t h e v a l u e of the subdivision property. The A s s o c i a t i o n maintained 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 allowed 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 covenants and t h e r e b y l e s s e n s the value of the subdivision property. We a g r e e . I n c r e a t i n g t h e restrictive covenants, the p a r t n e r s h i p expressly 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 value 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 r e s t r i c t i v e covenants would r u n counter t o t h a t purpose and w o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d a s ' i r r e p a r a b l e harm' a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . See Tubbs v . B r a n d o n , 374 So. 2 d 1358, 1361 ( A l a . 1979) . 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 t h e 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 , [our supreme court] h a s 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 b y 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 11 2100293 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 very 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 impermissibly 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 law 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." W i l l o w L a k e R e s i d e n t i a l A s s ' n v. We do not injunction resident c o u r t has i n t e r p r e t Willow i s due has to be granted Juliano, Lake as in every violated a restrictive a p p l i e d the doctrine d e c i d e d s i n c e W i l l o w L a k e was So. requiring case covenant. 12 See . that an i n which Indeed, o f "undue h a r d s h i p " released. 3d a t a this i n a case M a x w e l l v. Boyd, 2100293 [Ms. 2090318, Dec. 2010). 17, 2010] ___ So. 3d ___ In Maxwell, t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d the (Ala. Civ. "undue-hardship" d o c t r i n e as f o l l o w s : " I n t h i s c a s e , t h e B o y d s do n o t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e i r s t r u c t u r e complies w i t h the setback covenant or t h a t the s e t b a c k covenant i s o f d o u b t f u l meaning or ambiguous. R a t h e r , t h e y seek r e f u g e in the common-law d o c t r i n e o f 'undue h a r d s h i p ' most n o t a b l y r e c o g n i z e d i n A l a b a m a i n Lange v. S c o f i e l d , 567 So. 2d 1299 ( A l a . 1990) . The h o l d i n g i n Lange, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , i s b a s e d upon t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t enforcement of covenants running w i t h l a n d ' " i s g o v e r n e d by e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s , and w i l l n o t be decreed i f , under the f a c t s of the p a r t i c u l a r case, 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 " ' ; s p e c i f i c a l l y , i f ' " t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t has c e a s e d t o have any b e n e f i c i a l or s u b s t a n t i a l v a l u e " ' or '"the d e f e n d a n t will be subject to great hardship or the 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 , " ' a c o u r t of e q u i t y w i l l n o t e n f o r c e t h e c o v e n a n t . 567 So. 2d a t 1302 ( q u o t i n g 20 Am. J u r . 2d C o v e n a n t s , C o n d i t i o n s , & R e s t r i c t i o n s § 313 (1965)). That s a i d , however, t h e ' r e l a t i v e h a r d s h i p ' d o c t r i n e r e c o g n i z e d i n Lange i s a c r e a t u r e o f e q u i t y , and i t f o l l o w s t h a t s e e k i n g 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 o f c l e a n h a n d s . C f . H a n k i n s v. C r a n e , 979 So. 2d 801, 812 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( i n d i c a t i n g availability of unclean hands as defense to c o v e n a n t - e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n , b u t c o n c l u d i n g t h a t no f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r the defense e x i s t e d i n t h a t c a s e ) . E q u i t y i s t o '"prevent a p a r t y from a s s e r t i n g h i s , h e r , o r i t s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e law when t h a t p a r t y ' s own w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t r e n d e r s t h e a s s e r t i o n o f s u c h legal rights 'contrary to equity and good c o n s c i e n c e . ' " ' I d . ( q u o t i n g e a r l i e r Alabama c a s e s ) . "A pertinent specific a p p l i c a t i o n 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 f 13 App. 2100293 i t b e f o r e c o n s t r u c t i n g an i m p r o v e m e n t c o n t r a r y t o its provisions, even i f the harm is d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e . G r e e n v . L a w r e n c e , 877 A . 2 d 1079, 1082 (Me. 2005) ( c i t i n g 9 P o w e l l on R e a l P r o p e r t y § 6 0 . 1 0 ( 3 ) ) ; a c c o r d T u r n e r v. S e l l e r s , 878 So. 2d 300, 306 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) (affirming denial of r e l i e f f r o m r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t when t h e b u r d e n e d p a r t i e s 'knew t h a t t h e r e were r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e f r e e u s e o f t h e i r l o t when t h e y p u r c h a s e d i t ' ) . The knowledge sufficient t o warrant d e n i a l of the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p d e f e n s e n e e d n o t be a c t u a l , b u t may be c o n s t r u c t i v e . M i l l e r v . A s s o c i a t e d G u l f L a n d C o r p . , 941 So. 2d 982, 989 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( n o t i n g t h a t t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment d e n y i n g r e l i e f f r o m c o v e n a n t was s u p p o r t e d b y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e owners o f t h e b u r d e n e d l o t h a d ' p u r c h a s e d t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y knowing o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e deed r e s t r i c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e a t l e a s t c o n s t r u c t i v e l y knowing' o f nearby l a n d c o n d i t i o n s and p r o p e r t y owners' r i g h t s ) . " So. 3d a t received notice testified that . L i k e t h e Boyds i n M a x w e l l , t h e R i c e s h a d of the r e s t r i c t i v e he had been made covenants. aware William of the Rice restrictive c o v e n a n t s upon r e c e i p t o f t h e A p r i l 23, 2008, l e t t e r f r o m t h e A s s o c i a t i o n welcoming the Rices The dissent attempts to t o the neighborhood. distinguish this case from M a x w e l l b y a s s e r t i n g 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 as was light the v i o l a t i o n of the t r i a l covenant contained of the r e s t r i c t i v e at issue court's a latent covenant a t i s s u e i n Maxwell, findings that ambiguity, 14 particularly the that in restrictive the driveway 2100293 conformed to the Rices had not covenant, been driveway would not (Bryan, note warned as comply w i t h does the finding that l a t e n t a m b i g u i t y , was Thus, we that, unlike during J., dissenting, first, judgment, and construction the j o i n e d by by that this the restrictive the record, covenant. testimonial the 3d trial at We court's covenant contained court i n Grove conclude otherwise, i s no a Hill. that not a c l e a r v i o l a t i o n Moreover, there or their So. d e c l i n e t o r e l y on t h a t f i n d i n g t o now t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e d r i v e w a y was the Thompson, P . J . ) . restrictive reversed that covenant. dissent, the i n Maxwell, of evidence i n suggesting that the R i c e s were i n d o u b t as t o w h e t h e r t h e i r d r i v e w a y w o u l d c o n f o r m to the restrictive covenant at t e s t i m o n y s u g g e s t s t h a t he had covenants driveway. into consideration Committee in contravention disagree with William's restrictive whatsoever i n c o n s t r u c t i n g the p r e a p p r o v a l constructing undisputed their dissent, 15 that the the Rices of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review o f § 5.05(a) o f t h e the Rather, f a i l e d to take the Additionally, i t is f a i l e d to obtain issue. driveway, restrictive therefore, in clear covenants. regarding We the 2100293 distinction between the Rices' culpability and t h a t of the v i o l a t o r s of the covenant a t i s s u e i n Maxwell. With regard t o the d i s s e n t ' s a s s e r t i o n that the Rices not been w a r n e d t h a t the restrictive dissenting, does not their construction covenants, So. 3d j o i n e d by Thompson, P . J . ) , place the onus on c o v e n a n t s t o warn v i o l a t o r s the thereof was in violation at we (Bryan, note t h a t enforcer that of had of J., the law restrictive t h e y may n o t be i n c o m p l i a n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u c h as t h o s e i n t h e present residents Rices case, where to gain obtained the restrictive preapproval covenants require o f any i m p r o v e m e n t s . Had t h e such p r e a p p r o v a l , have b e e n a v o i d e d . any r e s u l t i n g damages We n o t e a l s o t h a t t h e r e the r e c o r d s u g g e s t i n g could i s no e v i d e n c e i n 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 t h e v i o l a t i o n d u r i n g c o n s t r u c 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 of that violation. The 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 n o t rise to the misconduct." level of "morally So. 3d a t b y Thompson, P . J . ) . (Bryan, reprehensible, willful J., dissenting, joined A l t h o u g h t h e mere b r e a c h o f a r e s t r i c t i v 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 an i n j u n c t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f 16 2100293 whether supra, t h e r e i s damage t o t h e c o v e n a n t e e , as applied stated above, we see W i l l o w Lake, recognize that the relative-hardship test this court to provide violators has of r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s r e l i e f u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . See Lange v . S c o f i e l d , 567 So. 2d 1299 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . "'Under [ t h e r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p ] t e s t 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 would benefiting harm one landowner without another landowner substantially T u r n e r v. S e l l e r s , So. 2d 300, 306 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) 878 ( q u o t i n g L a n g e , 567 So. 2d a t 1 3 0 2 ) . Despite "clean from hands" Alabama the apparent application i n M a x w e l l , we n o t e and other that jurisdictions, of the doctrine of a review of caselaw as well as other a u t h o r i t i e s , i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n cases i n which the v i o l a t o r of a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant had n o t i c e o f the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant before the v i o l a t i o n occurred, the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t i s unavailable to the v i o l a t o r . See M a x w e l l ; C u l l e n v . T a r i n i , 15 A . 3 d 968, 982 ( R . I . 2011) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a b a l a n c e o f the not appropriate equities was when violators knowingly v i o l a t e d the v a l i d r e s t r i c t i v e covenants t h a t a p p l i e d t o t h e i r p r o p e r t y ) ; B u r k e v. V o i c e s t r e a m W i r e l e s s C o r p . 17 I I , 207 A r i z . 2100293 393, 399, 87 P.3d 81, 87 erred by balancing 700, Hollis C t . App. 2004) hardships knowing o f r e s t r i c t i o n s structure); (Ariz. when party built court structure and t h e neighborhood's o p p o s i t i o n t o v. G a r w a l l , I n c . , 137 Wash. 2d 683, 699¬ 974 P.2d 836, 845 (1999) ("the b e n e f i t o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f balancing the e q u i t i e s , or r e l a t i v e hardships, the (trial innocent warning that defendant who his activity proceeds encroaches i s reserved f o r without knowledge on a n o t h e r ' s or property r i g h t s " ) ; a n d G l a d s t o n e v. G r e g o r y , 95 Nev. 474, 480, 596 P.2d 491, is 495 (1979) ("The e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e o f r e l a t i v e a v a i l a b l e only t o innocent p a r t i e s who hardship proceed without knowledge o r w a r n i n g t h a t t h e y a r e a c t i n g c o n t r a r y t o o t h e r s ' vested property rights."). s t a t e d i n Maxwell, a very hands d o c t r i n e . " The whether dissent T h a t l i m i t a t i o n a p p e a r s t o b e , as " s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n of the clean- So. 3d a t asserts the Rices' that driveway . the apparent comported w i t h confusion as t o the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants weighs h e a v i l y i n the R i c e s ' f a v o r i n b a l a n c i n g t h e equities. Thompson, So. 3d a t P.J.). (Bryan, In Buffington S.C. 388, 680 S.E.2d 289 (2009), 18 J . , d i s s e n t i n g , j o i n e d by v . T.O.E. E n t e r p r i s e s , 383 t h e Supreme C o u r t o f S o u t h 2100293 C a r o l i n a d e t e r m i n e d t h a t " i t w o u l d be [the] P e t i t i o n e r s ' financial i n e q u i t a b l e to loss i n purchasing and consider improving t h e l a n d s i n c e t h e y were on n o t i c e o f t h e c o v e n a n t s when t h e y purchased the p r o p e r t y . any To f i n d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t business could defeat a significant a t 393, 680 c o v e n a n t by spending the l a n d . " 383 amount o f money d e v e l o p i n g S.E.2d a t 291. a r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t who apparent confusion that a restrictive Likewise, to allow a v i o l a t o r proceeds with c o n s t r u c t i o n , restrictive covenant, would suggest t h a t l a t e r arguing undue and We, of The that Willow violator covenant doctrine unavailable therefore, d e c l i n e to apply cases i n which the aware of a restrictive construction that, in the adopt the reasoning trial court erred the was of before to defeat present restrictive the covenant violation hardship" occurred. is, the p r i n c i p l e case, in declining 19 in in the therefore, espoused i n Association e n t i t l e d t o seek the enforcement of i t s r e s t r i c t i v e The an the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t "relative to the R i c e s Lake despite t h a t t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e same w o u l d c r e a t e hardship. Buffington of over whether the c o n s t r u c t i o n complies w i t h c o v e n a n t c o u l d be d e f e a t e d by p r o c e e d i n g w i t h t h e and S.C. to grant the is covenants. permanent 2100293 injunction requested application of reverse trial the the entry the by the Association "relative-hardship" test. court's j u d g m e n t and o f a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h REVERSED AND Thomas, J . , Pittman, based We remand t h e this on its therefore cause for opinion. REMANDED. concurs. J . , concurs i n the result, without w r i t i n g . 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, joins. 20 P.J., 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 i t s 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 21 trial the trial court to on court's consider 2100293 whether the elements of In the the outlined element above discussed 1990). The remand, the of the i n Lange v. court covenants consequently, court's denied judgment, relative-hardship which that However, third this the element the of I do not restrictive the that standard relative-hardship So. 2d that Rices 12 99 (Ala. enforcing would harm the them In r e v e r s i n g the opinion should the not the concludes trial that the be applied " i n cases in restrictive covenant was of violation occurred." relative-hardship test instructed trial the t r i a l 22 3d at similar to standard court to that apply. court erred i n balancing in determining covenants. aware So. i s very permanent-injunction t h i n k t h a t the harms or h a r d s h i p s 567 injunction. the of the determined main test c o u r t i n Grove H i l l Thus, the violator court observed 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 and, the covenant before . the the trial Scofield, then three standard. matches" against s u b s t a n t i a l l y more t h a n remaining permanent-injunction "essentially trial restrictive e s t a b l i s h e d the permanent-injunction i t s j u d g m e n t on third test A s s o c i a t i o n had whether to enforce the 2100293 Essentially, hands doctrine the main opinion precludes the concludes application 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 are such from before doctrine a as this one. in specific restrictive violating i t . to establish clean-hands acts of as v. the level would East the Peska, whether one of a 581 a party (quoting 746, 287 conduct does not r i s e to willful misconduct. I court a restrictive precludes Gadsden Rices' trial relative-hardship knowledge v. that The known reprehensible, of m o r a l l y hold knowledge (1973)). willful to 291 A l a . 7 2 7 , 864 924, LLC a relative- S t e r l i n g O i l o f Oklahoma, I n c . v. Pack, 847, 2d The reprehensible of Alabama, clean- relative- ( A l a . 2007 ) 2d So. the 932 So. 985 covenant "'morally Developers Inc., relief of the the a p p l i c a t i o n of the expression that Retail Club, the rule precluding hardship facts.'" seeking that test should covenant rather as consider a than factor holding the a p p l i c a t i o n of the t e s t . N.W.2d 170 , 17 6 "knew t h a t he was f a c t o r to consider i n applying 23 (S.D. 1998 ) violating a party's in applying that See such Harksen (stating the covenant" that was the r e l a t i v e - h a r d s h i p t e s t 2100293 and concluding property o w n e r who covenants to violating In apply, [Ms. the be a cabin the inequitable in violation cabin although to of he require a restrictive knew he was that the opinion Dec. 17, relative-hardship test does not relies i n part 2010] So. on Maxwell 3d v. Boyd, (Ala. Civ. App. However, the f a c t s i n M a x w e l l are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from seeking The remove main facts built built concluding 2010). i t would the covenants). 2090318, the that in to this avoid case. the In enforcement a garage t h a t c l e a r l y Boyds d i d not restrictive doubtful contend covenant meaning or Maxwell, homeowners covenant, v i o l a t e d the r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. the a Boyds, restrictive that of the garage complied with or that the r e s t r i c t i v e ambiguous." So. 3d c o v e n a n t was at . s t r u c t u r e would but they b u i l t the garage Conversely, whether in the R i c e s ' covenants ambiguity. and not comply this with the r e s t r i c t i v e The q u e s t i o n that covenant, regardless. case, the parties hotly driveway a c t u a l l y v i o l a t e d the whether "of While b u i l d i n g the g a r a g e , the Boyds were warned numerous t i m e s the the the covenants whether 24 disputed restrictive contained the R i c e s ' driveway a latent conformed 2100293 to the r e s t r i c t i v e question Grove covenants regarding Hill, covenants i s not conformity the t r i a l contained court a determined latent Although this the Rices reversed had not v i o l a t e d we as t h e noted i n the r e s t r i c t i v e and t h a t the Rices' 43 S o . 3d a t 6 1 3 , 6 1 5 . the t r i a l the fact that the t r i a l As that ambiguity conformed to the covenants. Grove H i l l , clear-cut i n Maxwell. driveway court as court's court judgment initially the r e s t r i c t i v e ruled that covenants suggests that the Rices d i dnot a c t reprehensibly i n c o n s t r u c t i n g driveway. were Further, unlike the situation not repeatedly warned in 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, an i s s u e , court judgment, does not make specific findings [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] w i l l made those unless such findings findings necessary are Grove B a p t i s t Church v. Woodland 947 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 9 25 "'[W]here of fact assume t h a t t h e to clearly support i t s erroneous.'" G r o v e Cmty. ( A l a . 2006) be (quoting Cemetery Sundance 2100293 Marina, "The I n c . v. application within the Bonding the Reach, sound Co. facts rejecting of the the the So. clean 2d hands this 748 case, So. the Rices' clean-hands the Rices would of the doctrine court." a matter J & M ( A l a . 1999). did not that the Rices' a c t i o n s do n o t r i s e doctrine, and Bail Given court err the trial the r e s t r i c t i v e in have to the l e v e l of court covenants 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. P.J., 199 is 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 Thompson, ( A l a . 1990 ) ) . trial would b e n e f i t the A s s o c i a t i o n . court's 1324 argument Association's The 2d 198, c o r r e c t l y determined that enforcing against 1322, d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l v. Hayes, u n c l e a n hands. invoking of 567 concurs. 26

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.