Are restrictive covenants on real property always enforceable?
Tennessee courts generally do not favor restrictions on the use of real property. Tennessee’s courts have noted that restrictive covenants are “to be strictly construed with all doubts resolved in favor of the free use of property…” However, courts will recognize and enforce valid restrictive covenants according to their terms.
Do restrictive covenants “expire”?
The general rule is that the mere passing of time will not terminate a valid restrictive covenant.” Restrictive covenants without express, i.e. written, time limits generally do not lose their enforceability. However, restrictive covenants with a specific time limit may expire and be unenforceable.
Courts may choose to not enforce a restrictive covenant when there has been a radical change in area.
In certain situations, Tennessee courts may choose not to enforce restrictive covenants on property. One such example is when there has been a radical change in the environment of an area since the creation of the restrictions. Courts may choose to not enforce restrictive covenants when the surrounding environment has changed to the extent that their enforcement would not afford the protection that was originally intended and would have no purpose. For example, a court might choose to not enforce a covenant restricting a property to residential purposes only, when all of the surrounding properties are used for industrial purposes. In that situation, a court might find that the environment of the area had changed and that the enforcement of the restriction would not benefit the land.
Courts may choose to not enforce restrictive covenants when they have been abandoned.
In some cases, Tennessee courts have found that restrictive covenants were not enforceable because the restrictions had been “abandoned”. Abandonment of restrictive covenants can be found in situations where there has been “community acquiescence” to continued violations of the covenants. Often, this type of claim arises in situations where restrictive covenants have been included as part of development, such as subdivisions or neighborhoods, and the covenants have been ignored and unenforced. In order to constitute abandonment, violations of restrictive covenants must be so widespread that the restrictive covenants are essentially useless.
Express time limits, abandonment, and radical change in environment are just three examples of circumstances in restrictive covenants may not be enforced. A restrictive covenant’s enforceability is dependent upon the relevant law and specific facts of the case in question.
The attorneys have at Wooden Law Firm, P.C. have extensive experience with advising clients regarding restrictive covenants as well as litigating such issues. In Raymond A. Conn v. William M. Donlon et al., Wooden Law Firm successfully defended a homeowner against a developer’s attempt to enforce a subdivision’s restrictive covenants, with the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling that the developer could not enforce the covenants and was required to turn over control of the homeowners’ association to the subdivision’s property owners.
Contact Us
For assistance with your legal real estate needs, contact the attorneys at Wooden Law Firm, P.C. at (423) 756-9972.