Cowling v. Colligan
312 S.W.2d 943 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant limiting property use to residential purposes will be enforced against a border lot, even if changed conditions outside the subdivision have made the lot unsuitable for residential use, so long as the covenant's purpose of preserving the residential character of the subdivision can still be realized for the interior lots.
Facts:
- Post Oak Gardens Subdivision was established with restrictive covenants limiting the use of all lots to 'residence purposes only.'
- Mrs. R. M. Colligan owned Tract No. 2, a 5-acre, largely unimproved lot on the border of the subdivision.
- The road bordering Tract No. 2, Westheimer Road, evolved from a quiet country road into a heavily-traveled main thoroughfare.
- The property adjacent to and across the road from Tract No. 2, located outside the subdivision, became heavily developed with unrestricted business and commercial uses.
- Within the subdivision, churches were constructed on three different tracts.
- The market value of Tract No. 2 was substantially higher if unrestricted for commercial use ($35,000-$43,000 per acre) than when restricted to residential use ($10,000 per acre).
- R. E. Cowling and other subdivision homeowners sought to enforce the residential-only restriction against Colligan's tract.
Procedural Posture:
- R. E. Cowling and other homeowners filed a class action suit against Mrs. R. M. Colligan in a Texas trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to enforce restrictive covenants.
- Following a non-jury trial, the trial court declared the covenants valid but ruled it was inequitable to enforce them against Colligan's Tract No. 2 due to changed conditions, removing the tract from the restrictions.
- The plaintiffs (Cowling et al.), as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The plaintiffs (Cowling et al.), as appellants, sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do changed commercial conditions outside a restricted subdivision, which render a border lot more valuable for commercial use and less suitable for residential use, justify a refusal to enforce a 'residence purposes only' covenant against that lot?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Calvert
No. A court may not refuse to enforce a residential-only restriction on a particular lot on the sole ground that a change of conditions has rendered the lot unsuitable for residential purposes. The court must perform a balancing of equities, weighing the hardship to the owner of the burdened lot against the benefits to the other lot owners who wish to preserve the residential character of the area. If the benefits of the original plan can still be realized for the interior lots, the restriction must be enforced against border lots to prevent a 'domino effect' that would destroy the character of the entire subdivision. The presence of churches is considered a trivial violation and does not constitute a waiver or abandonment of the covenant against commercial use.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that protecting the integrity of a subdivision's restrictive scheme is a paramount concern, often outweighing the economic hardship imposed on a single landowner on the periphery. It strongly endorses the 'domino effect' theory, reasoning that making one exception for a border lot would inevitably lead to the unraveling of the entire restrictive plan. The case establishes a high bar for invalidating a covenant due to changed conditions, requiring proof that the covenant's original purpose can no longer be substantially achieved for anyone in the subdivision, not just that it has become inequitable for one owner.
