## Facts

- D & M Country Estates is a residential subdivision in Chubbuck, Idaho, subject to recorded restrictive covenants enforceable by the D & M Country Estates Homeowners Association (the association).
- Dwight and Denise Romriell (and related owners/operators) bought a lot in the subdivision that already contained a single-family residence.
- A key covenant limited development and occupancy on each lot: “No more than one dwelling shall be erected on any one lot and all such dwellings shall be limited to not more than two families.”
- The covenants also contained an exception mechanism requiring written approval by at least two-thirds of the property owners and approval by the Architectural Control Committee, with the additional condition that any exception comply with applicable laws and zoning regulations.
- The Romriells planned to remodel the home from a three-bedroom, two-bath residence into an eight-bedroom, eight-bath residence.
- The planned use was a group home for the elderly, housing up to eight unrelated adults.
- The Romriells requested an exception from the covenants (including by communicating with subdivision homeowners), but the association rejected the request.
- Despite the denial, the Romriells began converting the home for the proposed group-home use.
- The association sued for injunctive relief to stop remodeling and operation of the group home as inconsistent with the covenants.
- The Romriells counterclaimed, asserting the covenant was invalid and should not be enforced against the proposed elderly group home.
- The district court upheld the covenant as valid and enforceable, found the proposed group home violated the “not more than two families” limit, and issued a permanent injunction.
- The Romriells appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the subdivision covenant limiting each dwelling to “not more than two families” was valid and enforceable, and whether it prohibited using the residence as a group home for up to eight unrelated elderly adults.
2. Whether any asserted statutory or public-policy considerations required the court to refuse enforcement of the private covenant against the proposed group home.
3. Whether the district court properly granted a permanent injunction barring further conversion and operation of the group home where the owners did not obtain the approvals required for an exception.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held the covenant limiting a dwelling to no more than two families was enforceable and applied to the Romriells’ proposed occupancy arrangement.
- The Court agreed that converting the residence for use by up to eight unrelated elderly adults as a group home violated the covenant’s two-family restriction.
- The Court rejected the argument that statutory or public-policy considerations displaced enforcement of this private subdivision covenant in the circumstances presented.
- The Court upheld the permanent injunction preventing further conversion and operation of the group home in violation of the covenants.

## Legal Principles

- Recorded restrictive covenants are enforceable property-use agreements that run with the land and may be enforced by an association authorized to do so.
- Courts enforce restrictive covenants according to their text when the language is clear; limits on use and occupancy are not rewritten by the court.
- A covenant restricting a dwelling to a specified number of “families” may bar a planned living arrangement involving multiple unrelated residents when that arrangement exceeds the covenant’s limit.
- Governmental land-use classifications and statutory policies affecting zoning do not, without a clear legislative command, invalidate or override private restrictive covenants.
- When a covenant is violated or a violation is threatened, a permanent injunction is an available remedy, especially where the owner proceeds after being denied the approvals required for an exception.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court held that the D & M subdivision covenant limiting each lot to one dwelling occupied by no more than two families was valid and enforceable and that converting a single-family residence into an eight-bedroom group home for up to eight unrelated elderly adults violated that restriction; because the required exception approvals were not obtained and no statute or public policy displaced the covenant, the permanent injunction was affirmed.


D & M Country Estates Homeowners Association v. Romriell, 59 P.3d 965 (2002)