## Facts

- A Spokane subdivision’s 1955 restrictive covenants barred use of certain lots “for business purposes of any kind whatsoever.”
- Gordon Peckham owned and lived on a lot in the subdivision; Thomas and Jacelyn Milroy lived in a nearby home subject to the same no-business covenant.
- After remodeling the home in 1995, Jacelyn Milroy obtained a license and began operating an in-home daycare in December 1995.
- The daycare generated noise; parents parked near Peckham’s home and sometimes crossed his yard and used the alley behind his house.
- Peckham observed and photographed construction and complained to local authorities; after Thomas Milroy inherited the home in 1996, Peckham informed Jacelyn Milroy that the daycare violated the covenants.
- Other home-based businesses existed in the subdivision that also violated the covenant (e.g., drapery, painting, small construction, TV repair).
- Peckham sued in 1997 to enjoin the daycare; the trial court found the daycare was a prohibited business use, found Peckham had standing to enforce the covenant, rejected equitable defenses, and entered an injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether prior covenant violations by other home businesses constituted abandonment of the no-business covenant such that enforcement against the daycare was inequitable.
2. Whether Peckham’s delay in filing suit barred enforcement under laches.
3. Whether Peckham’s conduct barred enforcement under equitable estoppel.
4. Whether enforcing the covenant against a licensed residential daycare violated Washington public policy favoring childcare availability.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction prohibiting operation of the daycare.
- The court held the covenant had not been abandoned; several violations did not show erosion of the subdivision’s general plan sufficient to make enforcement inequitable.
- The court held laches did not apply because the evidence supported findings of no unreasonable delay causing legally cognizable prejudice.
- The court held equitable estoppel did not apply because Peckham’s conduct was not inconsistent with later enforcement and the Milroys did not show reliance and resulting injury.
- The court held public policy encouraging childcare did not override an unambiguous private restrictive covenant absent a clear statutory command invalidating such restrictions.

## Legal Principles

- A restrictive covenant is not abandoned merely because some owners violate it; abandonment requires proof that violations have materially eroded the common scheme so that enforcement would be inequitable.
- Laches requires both unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice; the applicability of laches depends on the factual circumstances and supported findings.
- Equitable estoppel requires (1) inconsistent conduct or representation, (2) reasonable reliance, and (3) injury from allowing the asserting party to contradict the earlier conduct.
- Courts generally enforce clear restrictive covenants as private property servitudes unless enforcement is unlawful or contrary to an explicit, overriding public policy expressed by statute.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a subdivision covenant broadly prohibiting business uses to enjoin a licensed in-home daycare, concluding that limited violations by others did not amount to abandonment and that laches, estoppel, and general childcare policy concerns did not bar relief.


Peckham v. Milroy, 104 Wash. App. 887, 17 P.3d 1256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)