Cullen v. Tarini, 15 A.3d 968

Thomas Cullen owns the high Beacon Hill property with unobstructed ocean views; he sought to enforce restrictive covenants on neighboring Hammersmith Lot3.
The Hammersmith lot was restricted by Declaration limiting building to Homesite Building Area, with fixed footprint, height, and Open Space/View Easement restrictions.
Tarini and related entity purchased the Hammersmith lot in 2005 subject to the declaration; Tarini was aware of restrictions and later built a home exceeding those limits.
Two preliminary drawing plans in late 2007 showed inappropriate footprint/heights; Tarini did not clearly inform Cullen of covenant violations.
From mid-2008, construction progressed with foundation and framing that exceeded the footprint and height restrictions; Cullen began to notice in November 2008 and petitioned the zoning board and then Superior Court.
The Superior Court issued a March 4, 2009 preliminary injunction; after a nonjury trial, the court granted a permanent injunction and related relief, finding violations, bad faith, and unclean hands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injunctive relief was proper without balancing equities or proof of irreparable harm	Cullen argues Ridgewood requires only covenant violation, not equity balancing or irreparable harm.	Tarini argues Belliveau requires weighing burdens vs. benefits before a mandatory injunction.	Injunction proper without balancing; irreparable harm not required.
Whether the trial court properly rejected laches, estoppel, and waiver defenses	Cullen asserts timely action upon learning of violation and notice of enforcement.	Tarini contends defenses barred enforcement due to delays or acquiescence.	Trial court's findings not clearly wrong; defenses rejected.
Whether the trial court properly found bad faith/unclean hands and notice issues	Cullen contends Tarini knowingly violated covenants and delayed notice.	Tarini contends adequate notice or lack of bad faith, challenging credibility determinations.	Court affirmed finding of unclean hands and bad faith.
Whether factual gaps about model/notice affected the outcome	Cullen argues sufficient notice and enforcement intent; model/plan issues do not defeat relief.	Tarini suggests model/notice evidence could negate enforcement.	No reversible error; credibility determinations supported relief.

Ridgewood Homeowners Association v. Mignacca, 813 A.2d 965 ((R.I. 2003)) (violation suffices for injunctive relief; no automatic equity balancing)
Martellini v. Little Angels Day Care, Inc., 847 A.2d 838 ((R.I. 2004)) (ad hoc balancing; protect covenants while weighing public policy)
Renaissance Development Corp. v. Universal Properties Group, Inc., 821 A.2d 233 ((R.I. 2003)) (continuing encroachment; balancing rarely appropriate when self-inflicted harm)
Belliveau v. O'Coin, 557 A.2d 75 ((R.I. 1989)) (balancing equities not universal; context-specific)
Hanley v. Misischi, 111 R.I. 233 ((1973)) (foundational equitable restraint principles in covenants)