## Facts

- Charles C. Glover and Arlene Glover owned Lot 9, an upper hillside parcel in Klamath Falls with views toward Mt. Shasta, Lake Ewana, and the downtown area.
- Victor Santangelo owned the adjoining downhill parcel, Lot 10.
- Lot 10 was subject to a recorded restrictive covenant benefiting Lot 9, created so that the value of Lot 9 as a “view lot” would not be impaired by future construction on Lot 10.
- The covenant provided, in substance, that “no second story shall ever be erected” on Lot 10 except within 51 feet of the front lot line along Huron Street; any one-story dwelling outside that 51-foot area was limited to a roof pitch not exceeding 2:12.
- In 1980, Santangelo began constructing a residence on Lot 10. A substantial portion of the structure was located outside the 51-foot area.
- As construction progressed, the Glovers concluded the structure would obstruct their view and sued for a temporary injunction to stop further work.
- The trial court denied temporary injunctive relief but warned Santangelo that any further construction would be “at his own peril.”
- Santangelo completed the residence as planned. The completed structure substantially impaired the Glovers’ western view, although their southern view across another neighbor’s property remained unaffected.
- The Glovers then sought a permanent injunction. At trial, they testified that the view was an important reason they purchased Lot 9.
- The trial court found that Santangelo violated the covenant by building a prohibited two-story structure with notice of the restriction and the dispute, found damages for loss of view very difficult to determine, and issued a mandatory injunction ordering Santangelo to remove the offending structure.
- Santangelo appealed, primarily challenging the mandatory injunction remedy.

## Issues

1. When a recorded restrictive covenant protects a neighboring lot’s view and damages for loss of that view are difficult to measure, may a court grant injunctive relief to enforce the covenant?
2. If injunctive relief is proper, must the trial court consider remedies less drastic than ordering the entire structure removed?

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo as an equity matter.
- The court agreed that Santangelo’s residence violated the restrictive covenant and that the covenant was enforceable against him because he had notice and proceeded with construction despite the dispute and the trial court’s warning.
- The court agreed that an injunction was an appropriate remedy because the covenant protected a property interest for which money damages were difficult to calculate.
- The court held, however, that the trial court should consider whether the covenant’s purpose could be achieved through effective alternatives short of razing the entire house.
- Disposition: affirmed, but remanded for consideration of alternatives to total demolition.

## Legal Principles

- A recorded restrictive covenant intended to preserve the benefit of a neighboring “view lot” may be enforced in equity against a burdened owner with record or actual notice.
- Injunctive relief is generally appropriate to enforce land-use covenants when monetary damages are uncertain or inadequate to compensate for the harm (such as loss of a protected view).
- A party who continues construction after receiving notice of the covenant and of pending litigation, and after an explicit judicial warning, proceeds at the risk that equitable relief may require costly corrective action.
- Even when a mandatory injunction is warranted, equity should tailor the remedy to fit the circumstances and consider whether modifications or partial removal can achieve compliance without unnecessary destruction.

## Conclusion

Glover v. Santangelo held that a view-protection covenant burdening Lot 10 could be enforced by injunction where the defendant built a prohibited two-story structure with notice and where the harm to the plaintiffs’ view was hard to value in damages, but the Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to consider whether the violation could be cured by a remedy less extreme than tearing down the entire house.


Glover v. Santangelo, 70 Or. App. 689, 690 P.2d 1083 (1984)