SC-2024-0437
Ala.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Rodney and Dyann Englund, through their company Georgetown Contractors, began constructing a house on Dauphin Island, Lot 23, after securing a permit from the Town but not from the Dauphin Island Property Owners Association (DIPOA).
- DIPOA issued a stop-work order citing violation of restrictive covenants: no DIPOA permit and the house's encroachment beyond a 90-foot setback from the street.
- DIPOA sued for injunctive relief, seeking to halt construction and require the house’s partial removal; Englunds counterclaimed that DIPOA was not enforcing the same restrictions against a neighbor.
- The trial court granted DIPOA’s injunction and denied the Englunds’ counterclaim and attorney fees for DIPOA; both parties appealed.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed, holding that enforcing the restrictive covenants in this case would impose disproportionate hardship on the Englunds compared to any benefit to DIPOA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforcement of 90-foot setback | DIPOA argued covenant is clear and breach warrants injunctive relief | Englunds argued strict enforcement causes great, disproportionate hardship to them | Trial court erred by not applying relative-hardship; injunction reversed |
| Lack of DIPOA approval before building | DIPOA claimed Englunds knowingly bypassed approval, undermining authority | Englunds said they relied on Town's process and past practice, no willful misconduct | No willful, morally reprehensible misconduct; clean-hands doctrine does not bar hardship defense |
| Relative-hardship defense applicability | DIPOA said actual/constructive knowledge bars this defense | Englunds said knowledge is just a factor, not an absolute bar | Relative-hardship test applies even with knowledge; hardship to Englunds is disproportionate |
| DIPOA's cross-appeal for attorney fees | Sought fees per the restrictive covenants | n/a | Moot—reversal of main judgment made fee request irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Lange v. Scofield, 567 So. 2d 1299 (Ala. 1990) (equitable enforcement of restrictive covenants will not be decreed if inequitable and unjust under the facts)
- Cole v. Davis, 383 So. 3d 646 (Ala. 2023) (relative-hardship defense applies even when defendant had notice of covenant)
- Stewart v. Secor Realty & Investment Corp., 667 So. 2d 52 (Ala. 1995) (no general legal right to a view under Alabama law, but restrictive covenants may provide one)
- Gulf House Ass'n v. Town of Gulf Shores, 484 So. 2d 1061 (Ala. 1986) (no legal entitlement to a view absent explicit covenant)
- Merchants Bank v. Head, 161 So. 3d 1151 (Ala. 2014) (ore tenus standard and manifest injustice for appellate review)
- Reetz v. Ellis, 279 Ala. 453 (Ala. 1966) (mere breach of covenant generally justifies injunctive relief)