## Facts

- A Huntington, West Virginia subdivision was subject to recorded restrictive covenants limiting structures and uses to “dwelling or residence purposes, or purposes of like nature,” with covenants running with the land.
- Dr. William F. Nease purchased property at 2703 Third Avenue with record notice of the covenants.
- Before Nease’s purchase, a prior owner had converted the premises into five residential rental units.
- In 1972, Nease began operating a chiropractic clinic from the property.
- Neighboring property owners sued to enjoin the clinic as a violation of the residential-use restriction.
- The surrounding area included increasing non-residential activity, including nearby institutional and business uses.

## Issues

1. Whether neighborhood changes were so substantial that the residential-use covenants could no longer be enforced because the original purpose of the restriction had been defeated.
2. Whether, even if the covenants remained valid, a court of equity should refuse injunctive enforcement where the clinic’s incremental harm was minimal compared to existing or prior uses.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The court held neighborhood changes were not sufficiently radical to nullify the covenants generally.
- The court nevertheless set aside the permanent injunction and declined to enforce the covenants against Nease’s chiropractic clinic on equitable grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants running with the land bind successors who take with notice, but equitable remedies to enforce them are discretionary.
- Changed conditions may defeat enforcement only when changes are so radical that they effectively destroy the essential objectives of the original development plan.
- Even when a covenant remains valid, a court may deny injunctive relief where enforcement would be inequitable, including when the challenged use is not materially more harmful than prior or surrounding uses and does not substantially impair the covenant’s residential purpose.

## Conclusion

The court preserved the formal validity of the residential-use covenants but reversed the injunction because the neighborhood had not changed enough to extinguish the restrictions and equity did not justify shutting down a low-impact professional clinic given the property’s prior intensive residential use and the limited incremental harm shown.


Morris v. Nease, 238 S.E.2d 844 (W. Va. 1977)