## Facts

- Riverside was a 19-lot subdivision created in 1958 along the James River in Amherst County, Virginia; it was used largely for recreation but included nine permanent houses.
- Recorded restrictive covenants provided that (1) no “shacks, tents, house trailers or temporary dwellings of any kind whatsoever” shall be “erected” on the property, and (2) lots shall be used for residential purposes only, with only one single-family residence on any lot.
- From 1958 through the late 1970s, owners used only permanent structures consistent with the covenants; thereafter, some owners brought campers into the subdivision.
- At suit, five campers were present; the campers were mobile, titled with the DMV, and brought onto lots by towing or driving.
- When placed, the campers were supported by jacks or bricks (though not strictly necessary), connected to electric and natural gas utilities, and were occasionally used for overnight sleeping.
- A real estate appraiser testified that campers or other temporary structures near single-family residences adversely affected residential property values.
- Significant flooding occurred in 1969 and 1972 without substantial damage to the permanent houses; later county regulations required future structures to be built at specified elevations.
- Lot-owner plaintiffs sought an injunction to prohibit the campers; defendants argued changed conditions made the covenants unenforceable and, alternatively, that the campers were not “erected” within the covenant’s meaning.

## Issues

1. Whether changed conditions in the subdivision (including increased recreational use and flooding-related developments) rendered the restrictive covenants invalid or inequitable to enforce.
2. Whether placing and using campers on the lots violated covenants prohibiting “house trailers” or “temporary dwellings of any kind whatsoever” being “erected” on the property, and limiting lots to a single-family residence for residential purposes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the trial court.
- The Court held the restrictive covenants remained valid and enforceable because their original purpose could still be accomplished and continued to benefit the lot owners.
- The Court held the campers violated the covenants as “temporary dwellings” (and functionally within the “house trailer” prohibition) when placed on lots and used for habitation.
- The Court construed “erected” to include the placement and setting-up of mobile dwellings on the property in a manner consistent with use as dwellings.
- The case was remanded with directions to enter an injunction prohibiting the defendants from placing the campers on their lots in violation of the covenants.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants adopted as part of a development scheme are enforceable in equity when their purpose remains achievable and enforcement continues to confer substantial benefit on the protected property interests.
- Changed conditions defeat enforcement only when they are so substantial that enforcement would be inequitable because the covenant’s essential purpose can no longer be realized.
- A covenant prohibiting “temporary dwellings of any kind whatsoever” may reach campers brought onto lots, connected to utilities, and used for overnight sleeping or habitation.
- Terms such as “erected” are construed in context to effectuate the covenant’s purpose and may include placing and setting up mobile dwelling units, not solely on-site construction.
- Related covenants are read together; prohibitions on temporary dwellings support and reinforce limitations requiring residential use and only one single-family residence per lot.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Riverside subdivision covenants, finding no sufficient change in conditions to justify nonenforcement and concluding that campers placed on lots, connected to utilities, and used as sleeping quarters constituted prohibited temporary dwellings “erected” on the property, warranting injunctive relief.


Marks v. Wingfield, 331 S.E.2d 463 (Va. 1985)