## Facts

- Ron and Marilyn Gabriel and Deloyd and Mary Cazier owned homes across the street from each other in a subdivision governed by recorded restrictive covenants.
- The covenants included a “NUISANCES” provision barring (1) “business or trade” and (2) conduct that becomes “an annoyance or a nuisance to the neighborhood by unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment” of other lots.
- From 1988 through 1995, the Caziers’ children conducted for-profit swimming lessons in the family’s backyard pool during summer months.
- Each summer, the children held multiple lessons per week for roughly ten weeks and earned about $10,000.
- The lessons increased neighborhood traffic and parking congestion.
- For students’ use, the Caziers placed a portable chemical toilet outside near the pool.
- Another covenant required that toilet facilities be located inside the dwelling and connected to a septic system.
- Evidence showed at least two other families in the subdivision also conducted swimming lessons at their pools.
- The drafter of the covenants testified the “business” restriction was intended to prevent permanent commercial operations, not temporary seasonal activities.

## Issues

1. Whether the covenant prohibiting “business or trade” on subdivision lots barred seasonal, for-profit swim lessons conducted by the homeowners’ children at the residence.
2. Whether the swim lessons and associated traffic constituted an “annoyance” or “nuisance” that unreasonably interfered with neighbors’ use and enjoyment under the covenants.
3. Whether the trial court’s enforcement of the indoor, septic-connected toilet requirement (by prohibiting the portable chemical toilet) should remain in place on appeal.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held the covenant’s “business” prohibition was ambiguous in context and was not construed to prohibit the seasonal swim lessons as conducted.
- The court held there was substantial and competent evidence supporting the finding that the lessons did not constitute a nuisance or unreasonable interference with neighboring property use and enjoyment.
- The prohibition on the outdoor portable chemical toilet remained in effect because it violated the separate covenant requiring indoor, septic-connected toilet facilities.

## Legal Principles

- When a restrictive covenant term is ambiguous, courts may consider drafting intent, circumstances at the time of drafting, and the parties’ practical construction and neighborhood practice.
- Ambiguous restrictive covenants are not extended to prohibit residential uses that are temporary and incidental where evidence shows the covenant was aimed at more permanent commercial enterprises.
- A claimed covenant-based nuisance requires proof of unreasonable interference; on appeal, factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial and competent evidence.

## Conclusion

The court allowed seasonal, for-profit swim lessons at a residence because the “business” restriction was ambiguous and did not clearly reach that activity, and it affirmed the finding that the lessons were not a nuisance; however, it enforced a separate covenant by barring an outdoor portable chemical toilet not connected to the home’s septic system.


Gabriel v. Cazier, 938 P.2d 1209 (Idaho 1997)