## Facts

- A nonprofit association bought a house in a platted subdivision and planned to operate it as a group home for eight unrelated adults with intellectual disabilities, with staff support in a home-like setting.
- The subdivision was subject to recorded restrictive covenants limiting use to “residential purposes only” and limiting buildings to “single or double family dwellings” (with height and garage limits).
- Neighboring homeowners sought to enjoin the proposed use, claiming the group home was not “residential” and that it was not a permitted “single or double family dwelling” because the residents were unrelated.
- The association responded that the use was residential, that the “single or double family dwellings” language described the type of structure rather than the occupants’ relationships, and that enforcement would conflict with state policy favoring community-based housing for persons with developmental disabilities.
- The trial court entered an injunction barring the group home’s operation; the association appealed, and the Missouri Supreme Court took the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether operating a staffed group home for eight unrelated adults with intellectual disabilities in an existing house violates a covenant restricting property to “residential purposes only.”
2. Whether a covenant permitting only “single or double family dwellings” limits occupancy to related persons, thereby barring a group home of unrelated residents.

## Decision

- The court reversed the injunction.
- The proposed group home was a residential use within the “residential purposes only” restriction because the residents would live there as a home rather than as patients in an institution or as part of a commercial operation.
- The phrase “single or double family dwellings” was construed as describing the building’s structural type (single- or two-family residence), not imposing an implied requirement that occupants be related; thus, the group home did not violate the covenant.
- Because the covenant was not violated, the court did not need to decide whether a statute expressing state policy against exclusion of such homes controlled or applied retroactively.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants are disfavored and are strictly construed; ambiguity or substantial doubt is resolved in favor of the free use of land.
- “Residential purposes” refers to a place where people dwell or make their home, as distinguished from business, commercial, or institutional use.
- Absent clear language to the contrary, a restriction to “single or double family dwellings” concerns the type of structure and does not, by implication, limit household composition to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that a nonprofit group home for unrelated adults with intellectual disabilities was a permitted residential use and that a “single or double family dwellings” covenant did not bar such occupancy, requiring dissolution of the injunction.


Blevins v. Barry-Lawrence Cnty. Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, 707 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. 1986) (en banc)