Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bush v. Echols
Citations: 686 So. 2d 331; 1996 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 875; 1996 WL 697983Docket: 2950895
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; December 5, 1996; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Richard L. Holmes, Retired Appellate Judge, addressed a case involving Ronald D. Bush and other property owners (plaintiffs) in the Woodfield Subdivision who filed a complaint against Terry Echols and Denmon Hood, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The complaint included additional defendants not relevant to the current appeal. The subdivision consists of seventy-three lots, with sixty-two subject to a restrictive covenant limiting usage to single-family residences. At the time of the lawsuit, eleven lots were unrestricted, and only twenty-eight lots had single-family homes. Notable exceptions included an automobile repair garage, a mobile home, and a former cabinet shop on various lots. Partial street improvements had occurred, but no new single-family homes had been built recently. Echols owned Lot 2 (unrestricted) and Lot 15 (restricted), for which he sought permits for an eight-unit apartment building. Hood owned Lot 7 (restricted) and sought a permit for a washeteria. The plaintiffs requested the court to enforce restrictions on Lot 2, Lot 7, and Lot 15, and to prevent construction of the proposed commercial structures. On January 25, 1996, the trial court ruled: (1) Lot 2 remained unrestricted; (2) Hood could proceed with the washeteria; and (3) Echols was enjoined from building on Lot 15. The plaintiffs' subsequent motion for a new trial or amendment of judgment was denied, prompting their appeal. The appellate court focused on whether the trial court's judgment was substantiated by the evidence. It noted the presumption of correctness regarding the trial judge's findings in non-jury cases, emphasizing that restrictive covenants are strictly construed against imposition. The trial court found insufficient evidence to impose restrictions on Lot 2, noting that less than forty percent of the lots were used for single-family homes and acknowledging the existing commercial use of restricted lots. Plaintiffs argued for the enforcement of a restriction on Lot 7, asserting that their hardship would significantly outweigh the burden on Hood to relocate his proposed washeteria. The trial court, however, applied the 'relative hardship test,' determining that enforcing the restriction would unfairly harm Hood without providing substantial benefit to the plaintiffs. Key facts outlined by the court include the location of Woodfield Subdivision along Sutton Bridge Road, which has evolved into a commercial corridor with various businesses nearby. Additionally, all Woodfield lots are zoned for highway commercial use. The court found that enforcing the restrictions against Hood would result in significant hardship and inequity, especially as Sutton Bridge Road is not suitable for new single-family homes. In contrast, the court upheld the restriction on Lot 15, noting that residents on Sixth Street wished to maintain their single-family home environment. The trial court's findings were supported by ample evidence, leading to the affirmation of its judgment. The opinion was authored by Retired Appellate Judge Richard L. Holmes, with all judges concurring.