Blevins v. Barry-Lawrence County Association for Retarded Citizens

Supreme Court of Missouri · Property

PropertyRestrictive covenantsrestrictive covenantresidential purposesgroup homefree use of propertyplain languagestructural restriction

Facts

Appellant owned a residence on Lot 23 in the Wildwood Estates Subdivision and planned to establish a group home for eight unrelated mentally retarded persons. The home would be operated by a nonprofit organization with house parents in a stable family-type environment, with no formal training, medical care, commercial activity, boarding-house operation, or structural alteration to the house. Respondents owned Lot 24 across the street and claimed the intended use violated subdivision covenants limiting the property to residential purposes and permitting only single or double family dwellings and private garages. The trial court enjoined the use.

Issue

Does operating a nonprofit group home for eight unrelated mentally retarded residents with house parents violate a restrictive covenant limiting the property to residential purposes only and permitting no buildings other than single or double family dwellings? More specifically, is the proposed use nonresidential, or does the covenant's building-language also restrict use?

Rule

Restrictive covenants are not favored and must be interpreted according to the parties' intent as expressed in the plain language of the covenant; any ambiguity or substantial doubt is resolved narrowly in favor of free use of property. "Residential purposes" means a place where people reside or make their homes, as distinguished from commercial or business use. Language permitting only certain kinds of dwellings describes the character of permissible structures and does not itself restrict use unless the covenant expressly addresses use or occupancy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a subdivision outside Springfield, Missouri, each lot is subject to a covenant stating: "Lots shall be used for residential purposes only." Cedar Path Living, a nonprofit, buys an existing house and plans to place seven unrelated adults with developmental disabilities there with two live-in supervisors; the residents will cook, clean, attend jobs or programs off-site, and remain long term.

If neighboring owners seek an injunction, how should a court most likely rule under the majority opinion's approach?

Explanation. The majority defined "residential purposes" by its plain and ordinary meaning as a place where people reside, dwell, or make their homes, as opposed to a commercial or business use. A noncommercial group home operating as a stable family-type residence, with ordinary home life and no institutional or boarding-house character, falls within that meaning. The fact that the residents are unrelated does not by itself make the use nonresidential.