## Facts

- A residential subdivision was subject to recorded restrictive covenants enforced by a homeowners association.
- The covenants required certain vehicles (including “trucks of any nature” parked overnight) to be kept in an enclosed garage.
- Charles D. Jones owned a commercial tow truck and regularly parked it in the open on his driveway rather than garaging it.
- The homeowners association sought an injunction to stop Charles and Glenda M. Jones from keeping or storing the tow truck on their lot.
- The Joneses argued the association could not enforce the restriction because it had not acted against two other owners who occasionally kept utility-company pickup trucks on their lots.

## Issues

1. Whether limited prior nonenforcement against other owners constituted waiver or abandonment of the association’s right to enforce the vehicle-parking covenant.
2. Whether the association was entitled to injunctive relief barring Charles Jones from parking the tow truck on his lot in violation of the covenant.
3. Whether injunctive relief could properly be entered against Glenda Jones absent proof that she violated the covenants.
4. Whether either party was entitled to attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a hearing transcript because the record and the trial court’s written opinion sufficiently set out the factual findings relied upon.
- The court held the association did not waive its right to enforce the covenant through limited, sporadic prior nonenforcement against two other owners.
- The court reversed the refusal to enjoin Charles Jones and remanded for entry of a decree enjoining him from parking the tow truck on his property in violation of the covenant.
- The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief against Glenda Jones because there was no evidence she personally violated any restrictive covenant.
- The court affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees to both sides.

## Legal Principles

- A restrictive covenant remains enforceable unless nonenforcement is so substantial and general that it shows an intent to relinquish the covenant or materially destroys its value.
- Sporadic or limited nonenforcement against a small number of violations, without a substantial effect on the covenant’s value or purpose, does not constitute waiver or abandonment and does not bar future enforcement.
- Injunctive relief to enforce restrictive covenants is appropriate where a valid covenant applies and an ongoing violation is shown.
- Injunctive relief against an individual requires an evidentiary basis that the individual violated (or is responsible for violating) the covenant.
- A trial court may deny attorney’s fees where the results are mixed and the equities do not justify shifting fees.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the subdivision’s vehicle-parking restriction by ordering an injunction against Charles Jones’s ongoing tow-truck violation, holding that limited prior nonenforcement against a few other owners did not waive the association’s enforcement rights; it otherwise affirmed the denial of relief against Glenda Jones and the denial of attorney’s fees.


Raintree of Albemarle Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones, 243 Va. 155, 413 S.E.2d 340 (Va. 1992)