Cordogan v. UNION NAT'L BK. OF ELGIN
380 N.E.2d 1194, 21 Ill. Dec. 18, 64 Ill. App. 3d 248 (1978)
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant limiting land use to single-family dwellings will generally be enforced by a court of equity unless there is a radical and complete change within the restricted subdivision itself that destroys the covenant's original purpose, or if the party seeking to be relieved of the covenant contributed to the external changes cited as justification.
Facts:
- Roy C. Wauchope developed Riverside Manor No. 1 in 1957 and recorded a plat of subdivision with restrictive covenants.
- One restrictive covenant for Riverside Manor No. 1 stated, 'No buildings shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family dwelling and a private garage for not more than three cars.'
- Between 1957 and 1977, Wauchope purchased farm property surrounding Riverside Manor No. 1, some of which he developed as Riverside Manor No. 2, and some he sold to other developers for commercial purposes without restrictions.
- During these years, State Route 31, adjoining the western boundary of Riverside Manor No. 1, was changed to a four-lane highway, and the Northwest Tollway was built just north of the subdivision.
- A Ramada Inn, a trailer camp, a Holiday Inn, a McGraw Edison manufacturing building, Judson College, and a building for the National Federation of High School Athletic Associations were built on commercially zoned land, some sold by Wauchope without restrictions, surrounding Riverside Manor No. 1.
- The plaintiffs purchased their lots in Riverside Manor No. 1, relying on and being induced by the single-family restriction.
- Wauchope owned Lots 18, 19, and 20 in the northwest corner of Riverside Manor No. 1 and had been unable to sell these three lots as single-family residential lots.
- In the spring of 1977, Wauchope began laying the foundation for a duplex apartment building on Lot 18, despite the city council of Elgin having rezoned the lots to allow such occupancy over the plaintiffs' opposition.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs opposed the City Council of Elgin's rezoning of Lots 18, 19, and 20 to allow duplex occupancy.
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunction in the circuit court of Kane County against defendant Roy C. Wauchope to enjoin him from constructing a duplex apartment building.
- The circuit court of Kane County, after hearing testimony and viewing exhibits, granted a permanent injunction, restraining Wauchope from building any structure on Lots 18, 19, or 20 other than a one-family residence.
- Defendant Wauchope appealed the circuit court's order to the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a significant change in the character of the area surrounding a residential subdivision, combined with the economic hardship to the developer of enforcing the original restrictive covenant, justify a court of equity in refusing to enjoin the developer from violating that covenant within the subdivision?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rechenmacher
No, a significant change in the character of the surrounding area and economic hardship to the developer does not justify refusing to enjoin the developer from violating a restrictive covenant within the subdivision, particularly when the developer himself contributed to the surrounding changes. The court reasoned that restrictive covenants concerning land use are generally enforced by courts of equity unless they are against public policy or principles of waiver or estoppel operate. The burden of proving a change in circumstances affecting the validity of a restriction, such that its object can no longer be accomplished, rests with the party seeking relief from its enforcement. Here, defendant Wauchope failed to demonstrate a radical and complete change within the subdivision itself that destroyed the original purpose of the restriction or indicated it had no value to the complainants. The court found Wauchope's argument unpersuasive, noting that he was partly responsible for the commercial development surrounding the subdivision by selling adjacent land without restrictions. He cannot use changes he helped create as a reason to disregard his own covenants within the subdivision. The court further clarified that the general balancing of equities, as in nuisance cases, is less applicable to restrictive covenants, where the grantor has the right to define the injury for themselves. Arguments regarding individual plaintiffs' alleged 'unclean hands' or willingness to tolerate duplexes in other, unrestricted subdivisions were deemed irrelevant to the specific covenant in Riverside Manor No. 1.
Concurring - Justice Nash
I concur in the majority opinion.
Concurring - Justice Woodward
I concur in the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the enforceability of restrictive covenants, especially against a developer who created the covenants and subsequently seeks to evade them based on external changes. It establishes that changes in the surrounding area are generally insufficient to invalidate a covenant unless there is a radical and complete change within the restricted area itself that renders the covenant's purpose moot. The court's emphasis on the developer's role in creating the 'changed' environment places a heavier burden on such parties, preventing them from profiting from self-created conditions to break their own prior commitments. This principle limits the 'changed circumstances' defense and reinforces the reliance interest of property owners within restricted subdivisions.
