254 So. 3d 222
Ala.2017Background
- Robert and Carin Diercks owned Lot 47 (house on Robin Drive) and purchased adjacent unimproved Lot 58 (fronting Brooks Boulevard) and later deeded both to themselves as one parcel; they did not replat the subdivision.
- The subdivision is subject to recorded restrictive covenants limiting use to single-family dwellings with accessory structures of like materials, prohibiting carports/garages from "opening on or face toward the front of the lot," setting minimum house size, and requiring 100-foot lot width at the front building line for most lots.
- The Dierckses obtained a city building permit (after combining the lots for tax/ownership) and began constructing a garage on Lot 58 that would open toward Brooks Boulevard; the city initially denied a permit because an accessory structure cannot stand alone on a lot, then issued a permit after the lots were combined on the deed.
- Neighbors sued seeking injunction and removal, arguing the garage violated multiple restrictive covenants (including the prohibition on garages facing the front of the lot, height/zoning conformity, and minimum lot width at the front line). The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding the combined parcel should be treated as a single lot for covenant application.
- The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Civil Appeals, holding that the covenants must be applied as they originally attached to Lot 58 and that the garage violates the covenant forbidding garages from opening onto the front of Lot 58 (Brooks Boulevard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether combining Lots 47 and 58 allows treating them as one lot for covenant application | Covenants should be enforced against combined parcel; plaintiffs argued structure violated covenants as to Lot 58 | Diercks: deeded combination and tax parcel consolidation makes the parcel a single lot so covenants apply to combined lot | Combining lots for ownership/tax purposes does not alter how covenants originally attached; absent express covenant permitting treating combined lots as one, original covenants remain applicable to Lot 58 |
| Whether garage opening onto Brooks Boulevard violates covenant 1.C (no garages facing front of lot) | Garage violates 1.C because it opens toward front of Lot 58 (Brooks Boulevard) | Diercks: combining lots creates ambiguity as to "front" so covenant should be construed in their favor, allowing garage | Court held covenant unambiguous as applied to original Lot 58; garage violates covenant 1.C |
| Whether covenant 2.B (house to be located in accordance with zoning) prohibits garage height | Plaintiffs argued height/zoning issue made garage nonconforming under covenants | Diercks argued covenant 2.B required compliance of accessory building with zoning | Court noted Court of Civil Appeals correctly held covenant 2.B applies to location of the house only, not accessory building height; court pretermitted further discussion |
| Whether covenant 3 (minimum 100 ft width at front building line) renders Lot 58 unusable | Plaintiffs relied on covenant to challenge buildability (Lot 58 has 78.5 ft frontage at front lot line) | Diercks argued that construing "front" as Brooks Boulevard makes lot unusable because of 78.5 ft frontage | Court explained front lot line differs from front building line (setback); covenant 3 may be satisfied by setting front building line back where width is 100 ft; record insufficient to decide this issue fully |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. Tacon, 293 Ala. 684 (1975) (lots may be re-subdivided/combined absent express prohibition in covenants)
- Hall v. Gulledge, 274 Ala. 105 (1962) (restrictive covenants in a subdivision create equitable easements running with the lots and are enforced for purchasers within a common scheme)
- Hines v. Heisler, 439 So.2d 4 (Ala. 1983) (restrictive covenants construed according to parties' intent and surrounding circumstances; doubts against restrictions)
- Ingle v. Stubbins, 240 N.C. 382 (1954) (original "front" and side lines control for covenant application despite later redivision of lots; owners cannot change front line by resubdivision)