Taylor v. Northam

Supreme Court of Virginia · 2021 · Property

Propertyrestrictive covenantspublic policygovernment speechchanged circumstancesjoint resolutionstate-owned monumentreasonableness

Facts

In 1887, the Allen heirs conveyed the traffic circle site for use as a monument to Robert E. Lee, and in 1890 the Lee Monument Association conveyed the completed monument and the circle to the Commonwealth through a deed signed by the Governor pursuant to an 1889 joint resolution. The deed stated that the Commonwealth accepted the gift and guaranteed it would hold the monument and circle perpetually sacred to that monumental purpose and faithfully guard and protect it. In 2020, Governor Northam directed the monument's removal from the circle. Nearby property owners, including successors to the Allen heirs, claimed the deed language created enforceable restrictive covenants and that the 1889 joint resolution bound the Governor to keep the monument in place.

Issue

Did the 1887 deed, 1890 deed, and 1889 joint resolution legally prohibit the Governor from ordering removal of the Lee Monument from state-owned property? More specifically, were any restrictive covenants enforceable against the Commonwealth, and was the 1889 joint resolution binding law that stripped the Governor of authority to remove the monument?

Rule

Restrictive covenants are disfavored and strictly construed, and they are enforceable only when the parties' intentions are clear and the restrictions are reasonable. A restrictive covenant becomes unenforceable if changed circumstances or public policy defeat it, and a covenant against the government is unreasonable if it compels the government to contract away, abridge, or weaken an essential sovereign power. A joint resolution expresses legislative opinion or sentiment but is not law and does not bind the Governor as a statute would.

🔒

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 1915, donors conveyed a bronze sculpture and the surrounding plaza in Columbus, Ohio to the state under a deed reciting that the state would preserve the sculpture in that location forever as a tribute to a particular military campaign. In 2026, the governor directs that the sculpture be removed because the state no longer wishes to endorse that message on state-owned land. Nearby homeowners sue to enforce the deed restriction.

How should a court most likely rule on the homeowners' claim?

Explanation. The majority treated permanent monuments displayed on government land as government speech and held that the government has an inherent sovereign power to choose the views it expresses. Even assuming a deed created a restrictive covenant, a covenant against the government is unreasonable and unenforceable if it compels the government to contract away or weaken an essential sovereign power. A perpetual obligation to keep a monument in place forces continued government speech and therefore cannot be enforced. (Derived from Taylor v. Northam (n.d.).)