Bruton v. Wolter

• Decision Date: 10 October 1975
• Docket Number: No. 740969,740969
• Citation: 216 Va. 311,218 S.E.2d 438
• Parties: LeRoy A. BRUTON v. Euphia S. WOLTER. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 438

218 S.E.2d 438

216 Va. 311

LeRoy A. BRUTON v. Euphia S. WOLTER.

Record No. 740969.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Oct. 10, 1975.

Robert P. Boyle, Charlottesville (Boyle & Wood, Charlottesville, on brief), for appellant.

Francis L. Buck, Charlottesville (William Massie Smith, Paxson, Smith, Boyd, Gilliam & Gouldman, Inc., Charlottesville, on brief), for appellee.

Before I'ANSON, C.J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the construction of a restrictive covenant found in a deed from J. R. Wolter and Euphia S. Wolter, his wife, to LeRoy A. Bruton, whereby the Wolters conveyed to Bruton 45 acres of their 70 acre parcel of land. The Wolters covenanted with Bruton that their remaining portion, after the conveyance, should henceforth be subject to the following restriction:

'(T)hat no more than one principal or primary residence, together with outbuildings for dependency uses of occupants of said residence, including buildings to house employees, guests, livestock and machinery, shall be erected or maintained thereon, and that said property will be used only for residential, ranching and agricultural uses and for no other commercial or mercantile uses.'

It was the judgment of the court below 'that the construction by the respondent upon her land of a guest cottage, in addition to a principal or primary residence to be occupied by the respondent owner . . . and the rental of said guest cottage, as is the respondent's announced intention, to not more than one family unit, not occupants of the principal or primary residence, would not violate the applicable restrictive covenant . . ..' The trial court denied an injunction prohibiting the construction by Wolter of the cottage, and Bruton appealed.

The facts are not in controversy. In his brief Bruton recites:

'After Mr. Wolter died, Mrs. Wolter decided to erect a residential complex on the portion of the property which she and Mr. Wolter had retained. This complex was to consist of a main residence, a guest cottage and a stable. Such a complex would be permissible under the terms of the covenant inasmuch as it contained a principal residence and outbuildings for dependency uses, I.e., the guest cottage and the stable. The purpose for constructing the complex in the manner contemplated was to enable Mrs. Wolter to have a place for her children to stay when they came to visit or were taking care of her in time of illness.

'In the fall of 1972 it came to Mr. Bruton's attention that Mrs. Wolter was involved in a course of action which appeared to be a violation of the restrictions in said covenant. Mrs. Wolter had decided to rent separately the guest cottage, as a residence, to persons not members of her family, rather than confining it to guests as was her original intention. . . .'

Mrs. Wolter represents that she designed and began construction of a residential complex consisting of a main dwelling house, a guest cottage and a stable modeled after the English courtyard; that she is a lover of horses and wanted the stable close by her home; and that, being of uncertain health, she wanted a cottage nearby in which her sons or others could reside when her health required that someone live closeby.

Appellant concedes that the construction and use of a guest cottage for the alleged intended purpose would be permissible under the covenant. He contends, however, that until such time as the cottage is occupied by a member of Mrs. Wolter's family, a guest, an employee or by someone needed because of the condition of appellee's health, the cottage will have to remain vacant. The narrow issue is whether Mrs. Wolter may rent her guest cottage while awaiting one of these eventualities.

The general rule regarding the construction and enforcement of restrictive covenants was stated by Mr. Justice Buchanan in Schwarzschild v. Welborne, 186 Va....