Jackson v. Williams
| Decision Date | 10 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 61405,61405 |
| Citation | 1985 OK 103,714 P.2d 1017 |
| Parties | Bob JACKSON and Sue Jackson, husband and wife; Robert Cobey and Susan Cobey, husband and wife; Charles Smith and Janette Smith, husband and wife, Appellees-Plaintiffs, v. Larry E. WILLIAMS and Xan H. Williams, husband and wife; Larry Emmett Williams, as Trustee of the Revocable Inter Vivos Trust of Larry Emmett Williams, Appellants-Defendants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
John D. Boydston, Messrs. Harris & Boydston, Tulsa, for appellants-defendants.
James R. Hays, Messrs. Ellison, Hays & Nelson, Tulsa, for appellees-plaintiffs.
Paul A. Karns, Jenks, Jon R. Garrett, Garrett & Rogers, Detroit, Mich., for amicus curiae Homelife Ass'n for the Handicapped, Inc.
Three questions are presented for decision:
(1) Does the use of a residence as a group home for five mentally handicapped women and their housekeeper constitute a "single-family dwelling" within the meaning of the City of Tulsa's zoning ordinance? (2) Does maintenance of a group home offend the applicable restrictive covenant that limits the use of the property in the zoned district to a residential purpose and the character of the structure to a "single-family dwelling?" and Does the operation of a group home violate the applicable This controversy centered on the attempt by Larry and Xan Williams [collectively called Williams], defendants, to lease their home in the Park Plaza South III subdivision in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to the Oil Capital Association for the Handicapped, Inc. [Association], a non-profit organization. The Association planned to use the house as a group home for five mentally handicapped women, one of whom was to be a twenty-one year old daughter of Williams. 1 A housekeeper would reside in the home for the primary purpose of supervising and running the household. 2 Williams had several years earlier placed the house in a revocable inter vivos trust with Larry Williams as the trustee. The trust would receive $1,000.00 per month as rent from the Association, which in turn would collect rent from the five sublessees. 3 The salary of the housekeeper would be paid by the Association.
restrictive covenant prohibiting noxious or offensive trade or activity being carried on upon any lot within the subdivision? We answer the first question in the affirmative and the last two in the negative
Several of the residents [Homeowners] in the subdivision sought to enjoin the establishment of the group home in their neighborhood as being violative of certain restrictive covenants and zoning laws. The homeowners secured a temporary injunction to prohibit the occupancy of the house by a group of mentally retarded persons.
At the hearing on the permanent injunction some of the homeowners elaborated upon the character of the subdivision. 4 There was testimony that placement of the group home in the neighborhood would create problems of traffic congestion and lead to a decrease in property values of the surrounding lots. Two neighbors testified that Williams' daughter was an annoyance and a nuisance at times. 5
The trial court issued a permanent injunction upon its finding that the proposed use of the house was incompatible with the restrictive covenants and zoning ordinances. 6
Williams seeks appellate relief on the ground that the proposed use of the home is permitted by the local zoning laws and applicable restrictive covenants. The homeowners characterize the proposed use of the home as institutional and thus prohibited in the area.
During the proceedings in the trial court the homeowners asserted that the following zoning laws and restrictive covenants would be violated by the maintenance of a group home:
(1) The Park Plaza South III subdivision is a RS-3 zoning district which means that it is a residential, single-family high-density district. 7
(2) Covenant A of the subdivision's deed of dedication requires that all lots in the tract shall be known and described as residential lots. It further provides that no structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any building lot other than a detached "single-family dwelling."
(3) Covenant E provides that no noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
The trial court granted injunctive relief based on violations of these provisions.
The award of a permanent injunction is a matter of equitable cognizance. On review of an equity case we are bound neither by the reasoning of the trial court nor by its findings but may examine the whole record and consider and weigh all the evidence. 8 The findings and decree of the trial court will not be disturbed unless found to be clearly against the weight of the evidence. 9 An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and relief by this means is not to be granted lightly. 10 The right to injunctive relief must be established by clear and convincing evidence and the nature of the injury must not be nominal, theoretical or speculative. 11
Zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed and not extended by implication. Any ambiguity or uncertainty should be decided in favor of the property owner whose use of the premises, actual or proposed, is in contest. 12
The Park Plaza South III addition is zoned as a residential single-family high density district. 13 These districts are: 14
"... designed to permit the development and conservation of single-family detached dwellings in suitable environments in a variety of densities to meet the varying requirements of families."
The zoning code requires that it be interpreted by resorting to the definitions set out in Chapter 18. 15 A "single-family" dwelling is defined as:
"A building, other than a mobile home, containing one dwelling unit designed for occupancy by not more than one family."
The term "family" is defined as:
"One or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood, marriage, or adoption, no such family shall contain over five persons, but further provided that domestic servants may be housed on the premises without being designated as a family." [Emphasis added].
The district court's ruling on this issue was clearly contrary to the plain wording of the ordinance. Where, as here, the zoning law has expressly defined the meaning of the term "family," the stated definition is controlling. 16 The proposed use of the home as a residence for five unrelated mentally handicapped persons and one housekeeper would clearly bring the group home within the terms of the zoning laws.
The ordinance does not require, as suggested by the homeowners, that all who live in the house own it jointly, nor can this requirement be fairly implied within its terms. The district court was concerned that Williams had not applied for a variance from the zoning commission. Since occupancy of Williams' home by five persons unrelated to one another and their housekeeper is permitted by the zoning ordinance, there was no need for Williams to seek a variance.
The specific restrictive covenants that are at issue in the instant case provide:
Covenant A
[Emphasis added].
We begin our analysis with a fundamental premise of the law of real property. While the intentions of the parties to restrictive covenants ordinarily control the construction of the covenants, such covenants are not favored by the law and they will be strictly construed to the end that all ambiguities will be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property. 17
Covenant A sets forth both a use and a structural restriction. 18 The first sentence in Covenant A requires the lots to be residential; the rest of the covenant requires that any structure be a single-family dwelling.
The homeowners argue that the maintenance of a group home is not a residential use but necessarily a commercial one because the Association will receive financial remuneration from the residents and will hire a housekeeper to supervise the residents. Although the commercial nature of a group may have some relevance, that characteristic is not determinative in this case. It is the purpose and method of operation which serves to distinguish the proposed residential use of the home from that normally incident to a purely commercial operation. Financial gain is clearly not the motivation of the Association in the operation of the home.
The five women are to function as a single housekeeping unit by sharing in the preparation of meals, performing housekeeping duties and planning recreational activities. Most of the women have outside employment. The housekeeper will provide supervision and guidance similar to that of the head of any household. The day-to-day activities occurring at the home, as viewed from the outside, will not make it appear unlike the rest of the neighborhood. The essential purpose of the group home is to create a normal family atmosphere dissimilar from that found in traditional institutional care for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Messenger v. Messenger
...1219, 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); see also Fair Sch. Finance Coun. of Okla. v. State, supra note 41 at 1147 n. 46; Jackson v. Williams, Okl., 714 P.2d 1017, 1024 n. 24 (1985); Turner v. City of Lawton, Okl., 733 P.2d 375, 380 (1987); Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal.3d 336, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 337, 80......
-
Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. Imler
...Homes, Etc. (1981), 302 N.C. 64, 274 S.E.2d 174; Beres v. Hope Homes, Inc. (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 71, 453 N.E.2d 1119; Jackson v. Williams (1985), Okla., 714 P.2d 1017; Crowley v. Knapp (1980), 94 Wis.2d 421, 288 N.W.2d 815. See generally Annot., Restrictive Covenant Limiting Land Use to "P......
-
Howard v. Nitro–Lift Techs., L.L.C.
...Walker v. Telex Corp., 1978 OK 13, ¶ 7, 583 P.2d 482. 11. Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 1996 OK 109, ¶ 5, 925 P.2d 546; Jackson v. Williams, 1985 OK 103, ¶ 9, 714 P.2d 1017. 12. Brown v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities, 2005 OK 88, ¶ 11, 125 P.3d 1219; Johnson v. Ward, 1975 OK ......
-
State ex rel. Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson
...of fact, the same will be affirmed." Id . ¶11 An action for abatement of a nuisance is equitable in nature. See, e.g. , Jackson v. Williams , 1985 OK 103, ¶ 9, 714 P.2d 1017, 1020. "In a case of equitable cognizance, a judgment will be sustained on appeal unless it is found to be against th......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...Courts have also been called upon to interpret the term “family” as used in neighborhood restrictive covenants. In Jackson v. Williams, 714 P.2d 1017 (Okla. 1985), the court held that use of a residence as a group home for five mentally handicapped women and their housekeeper did not violat......
-
Making a Business of "residential Use": the Short-term-rental Dilemma in Common-interest Communities
...a residential use covenant so long as the nonresidential use was casual, infrequent or unobtrusive . . . .'")); Jackson v. Williams, 714 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Okla. 1985) ("Although the commercial nature of a group may have some relevance, that characteristic is not determinative in this case. I......
-
Residential Group Homes for Nebraska's Troubled Youth: an Attractive Alternative to Institutionalization
...See id. (citing, e.g., Blevins v. Barry-Lawrence County Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, 707 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Mo. 1986); Jackson v. Williams, 714 P.2d 1017, 1021 (Okla. 1985)). 38. See generally id. 39. 216 Neb. 653, 345 N.W.2d 4 (1984). 40. See id. at 659, 345 N.W.2d at 8. 41. Id. at 656, 345 ......
-
Mains Farm v. Worthington: Fair Housing Laws and Fear of Adult Family Homes
...1984) (finding that "single family dwelling" restrictive covenant was merely an architectural designation). 31. In Jackson v. Williams, 714 P.2d 1017, 1023 (Okla. 1985), the court determined that a group home did not violate a "single family" covenant because there was no explicit additiona......