Sea Pines Plantation Co. v. Wells

• Citation: 294 S.C. 266,363 S.E.2d 891
• Decision Date: 05 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. 22798,22798
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: SEA PINES PLANTATION COMPANY, Respondent, v. William M. WELLS, III, Appellant. . Heard

Page 891

363 S.E.2d 891

294 S.C. 266

SEA PINES PLANTATION COMPANY, Respondent, v. William M. WELLS, III, Appellant.

No. 22798.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard May 5, 1987.

Decided Nov. 9, 1987.

Thomas E. McCutchen and Herbert W. Hamilton, of Whaley, McCutchen, Blanton & Rhodes, Columbia, for appellant.

Frank H. Clabaugh, of Dowling, Sanders, Dukes, Svalina, Ruth & Williams, Hilton Head, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice:

Appellant William M. Wells, III, appeals trial court's decision that he violated certain restrictive covenants of respondent Sea Pines Plantation Company (Sea Pines) and the trial court's issuance of a mandatory injunction regarding those violations as a remedial device. We affirm the trial court's decision.

Wells bought three lots and a partially completed house in Sea Pines Plantation Subdivision on Hilton Head Island. During negotiations for the purchase of the property, Wells received a set of construction plans for the house that had been approved by the Architectural Review Board of Sea Pines Plantation (ARB). He hired a registered architect to act as contractor and construction manager to complete the house. After Wells began construction, ARB officials objected to specific unapproved portions of the work. Appellant's representatives met with the ARB and his attorney prepared a memorandum of agreement, which was rejected by the ARB. Consequently, Sea Pines brought an equity action to enjoin Wells from modifying the construction of his house and relandscaping his property.

Appellant denied violating the restrictive covenants and asserted that they were vague, unenforceable and were arbitrarily and unreasonably applied. Appellant further contends that either Sea Pines was estopped to enforce the restrictive covenants or had waived the restrictions because of existing uses permitted in the subdivision.

A temporary restraining order initially enjoined Wells from completing the loft area of his house and prohibited further landscaping activities. Upon dissolution of this order by the trial court, Wells received ARB approval for further modifications to the residence and resumed construction. During this phase, Wells made other changes without the required approval. As a result, Sea Pines attempted to amend its complaint to include allegations of public nuisance, private nuisance and an award of attorney's fees. Its motion to amend the complaint was denied. However, the court heard evidence and ruled on these additional alleged violations.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered its order directing Wells to remove the flagpole, jacuzzi and satellite antenna from the roof; remove the wrought iron fence, gate, beach walkway, shower, and the no trespassing sign; remove all trees, bushes, walls, fences and other structures he had placed or caused to be placed in the view easements; change the loft area and relandscape the property.

I.

First, appellant argues that the trial court erroneously concluded that the restrictive covenants were applicable and prohibited the various modifications made without the Architectural Review Board's approval. Specifically, appellant contends that the trial court's conclusion is a result of its failure to strictly interpret the covenants in favor of free use of property.

The historical disfavor of restrictive covenants by the law emanates from the widely held view that society's best interests are advanced by encouraging the free and unrestricted use of land. See, Hamilton v. CCM, Inc., 274 S.C. 152, 263 S.E.2d 378 (1980); Edwards v. Surratt, 228 S.C 512, 90 S.E.2d 906 (1956). See also, Knox v. Scott, 62 N.C.App. 732, 303 S.E.2d 422 (1983). Courts tend to strictly interpret restrictive covenants and resolve any doubt or ambiguities in a covenant on the presumption of free and unrestricted land use. Edwards v. Surratt, supra. Thus, to enforce a restrictive covenant, a party must show that the restriction applies to the property either by the covenant's express language or by a plain unmistakable implication. Hamilton v. CCM, Inc., supra; see also, Davey v. Artistic Builders, Inc., 263 S.C. 431, 211 S.E.2d 235 (1975).

The rule of strict construction governing restrictive covenants does not preclude their enforcement. A restrictive covenant will be enforced if the covenant expresses the party's intent or purpose, and this rule will not be used to defeat the clear express language of the covenant. Palmetto Dunes v. Brown, 287 S.C. 1, 336 S.E.2d 15 (1985); Hamilton v. CCM, Inc., supra. See generally, Vickery v. Powell, 267 S.C. 23, 225 S.E.2d 856 (1976); Hoffman v. Cohen, 262 S.C. 71, 202 S.E.2d 363 (1974). This restrictive covenant is a voluntary contract between the parties. Courts shall enforce such covenants unless they are indefinite or contravene public policy. Vickery v. Powell, supra. We conclude that the court did not err in finding the restrictive covenants enforceable.

Second, appellant alleges that even if the restrictive covenants were applicable, respondent's disapproval of the modifications for aesthetic reasons was arbitrary. Appellant, relying upon Boiling Springs Lakes Division of Reeves Telecom Corp. v. Coastal Services Corp., 27 N.C.App. 191, 218 S.E.2d 476 (N.C.Ct.App.1975), contends that some standard for approval of modifications must be clearly set out in connection with a general plan or scheme of development.

In Palmetto Dunes, the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that a refusal to approve plans for aesthetic reasons will be upheld where the covenant or appropriate authority has provided guidelines for enforcement and expressed the purpose of the restrictive covenant. 336 S.E.2d at 20. Cf., Snowmass American Corp. v. Schoenheit, 524 P.2d 645 (Colo.App.Ct.1974) (court held purpose of all covenants was to establish and maintain residence quality, value, and attractiveness in spite of the fact that no specific aesthetic considerations were contained in covenant).

The record clearly establishes that the ARB's rejection of appellants' modifications based on aesthetic considerations was not arbitrary but bears a sufficient relation to the subdivision's general plan of development. Appellant knew that ARB approval was a prerequisite to modifications or construction; yet, he proceeded to make modifications without approval. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that the restrictive covenants applied to appellant's property and were not arbitrarily or discriminately enforced.

Having established that the restrictive covenants are applicable to appellant's property and were not arbitrarily enforced, we address the issue of whether appellant, in fact, violated the covenants. In making such a determination, the trial judge's rulings must be examined with respect to each alleged violation. A trial court's decision should be affirmed unless the decision is unsupported by the evidence or influenced by error of law. Jacobs v. Association of Independent Colleges and Schools, 265 S.C. 459, 219 S.E.2d 837 (1975). See also, Odom v. Odom, 248 S.C. 144, 149 S.E.2d 353 (1966); Hicks v. Giles, 241 S.C. 129, 127 S.E.2d 196 (1962).

A. Appellant alleges that the trial court erroneously concluded that the flagpole, satellite dish and jacuzzi were "structures" as contemplated by the covenant and necessitated ARB approval. The trial court found that the ARB could reasonably refuse to approve these rooftop structures based upon the subdivision's common scheme of development and the broad powers contained in the covenant. ¹ We agree.

Although a flagpole, jacuzzi or satellite dish were not expressly named and prohibited, a particular use or structure may be forbidden by the covenant's general language without an express designation or label. See, e.g., Nance v. Waldrop, 258 S.C. 69, 187 S.E.2d 226, 227 (1972). The covenant prohibited alterations affecting the exterior of any building or structure. ² We hold that the trial court properly determined that these rooftop structures are prohibited unless prior approval is obtained from the ARB. Appellant asserts further that the presence of flagpoles and satellite dishes on other property within the subdivision estops respondent from enforcing the covenant against him. We find this contention to be without merit because of the dissimilarities between appellant's structures and those on neighboring property.

B. Appellant next avers that the trial court erroneously concluded that he breached the restrictive covenants by maintaining and failing to obtain prior approval for landscape modifications and by obstructing the view of second-row lot owners. ³ The covenant expressly prohibits cutting or removing trees without ARB approval. Appellant nevertheless, inter alia, removed trees from his property, constructed a beach walkway, a fence, and planted hedges and trees without ARB approval. Moreover, appellant's unapproved planting of trees, shrubbery and the erection of a wall obstructed the view easements of the second-row lot owners. See generally, Ezer v. Fuchsloch, 99 Cal.App.3d 849, 160 Cal.Rptr. 486 (1979); Moch v. Schulman, 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 38 Cal.Rptr. 39 (1964). In view of the covenant's express prohibition against such landscape modifications, we find no error in the trial court's decision.

C. Appellant contends further that the trial court erred in concluding that his modified loft constituted a third story, in violation of the restrictive covenant. ⁴

There is conflicting testimony and evidence concerning whether the loft area constitutes a third story. Respondent asserts that appellant's loft modification created an impermissible third story even though the height of the house, as previously approved, remained unchanged. The trial judge, as trier of the fact, conducted an on-site inspection of the premises. Based upon his personal observation and the Southern Building Code's definition of a story, he concluded that the modified loft constituted a third story....