Laux v. Phillips
37 Del. Ch. 435, 1958 Del. Ch. LEXIS 131, 144 A.2d 409 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant that explicitly prohibits the use of a building or structure for any "business, trade or calling" creates an absolute ban on such use, separate and distinct from any subsequent clauses that prohibit "noxious, dangerous or offensive" businesses.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and defendants, a husband and wife, own residential properties in a development known as McDaniel Crest.
- All properties in the development are subject to a set of deed restrictions imposed around 1953.
- The defendants began operating a beauty shop within their two-story residential home.
- The defendants' home is their sole residence where they live with their three minor children.
- The external appearance of the defendants' house is architecturally in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
- The parties agreed that the beauty shop constitutes a "business, trade or calling" under the terms of the restriction.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, a group of homeowners, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery (a court of first instance) against the defendant homeowners.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the defendants from operating a beauty shop in their residence, alleging it violated deed restrictions.
- The parties stipulated that the court should first rule on a separate legal question regarding the interpretation of the deed restriction before proceeding with the rest of the case.
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 deed restriction containing one clause that prohibits any building from being used for a "business, trade or calling," and a separate clause prohibiting any "noxious, dangerous or offensive" business, require a showing that a business is noxious, dangerous, or offensive in order to be in violation of the restriction?
Opinions:
Majority - Seitz, Chancellor
No. The operation of the beauty shop does not need to constitute a 'noxious, dangerous or offensive thing, trade or business' to violate the restriction. The court reasoned that the first clause of Restriction 7, which forbids using a 'building or structure' for any 'business, trade or calling,' is an independent and absolute prohibition. It is distinct from the second clause, which prohibits 'noxious, dangerous or offensive' activities on the 'property' more generally and does not mention structures. This interpretation gives separate and reasonable effect to both clauses without requiring the court to insert words like 'primary' into the text. The court also found it significant that these restrictions were imposed in 1953, shortly after the 1951 decision in Monigle v. Darlington, which involved a similar restriction that lacked the first clause. The inclusion of the first clause here suggests a clear intent by the drafter to create an unqualified ban on using structures for business, going beyond the 'noxious' standard.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the interpretation of multi-clause restrictive covenants, establishing that a specific prohibition operates independently of a more general, qualified one. The court's ruling reinforces the principle of giving distinct meaning to every part of a legal text, avoiding interpretations that would render a clause superfluous. By considering the historical context of a similar prior case (Monigle v. Darlington), the court demonstrated how recent legal developments can inform the interpretation of a drafter's intent. This precedent strengthens the ability of homeowner associations and developers to enforce specific-use restrictions without the higher burden of proving the prohibited activity amounts to a nuisance.
