## Facts

- Chimney View Estates was a lakefront subdivision subject to recorded restrictive covenants and a plat legend stating: “No building shall be erected between the 20 foot minimum building line and the 660 contour line of the Lake of the Ozarks.”
- William and Ann Turpin owned Lot 3, which had an existing residence; David and Karen Watts owned adjacent unimproved Lot 4.
- The plat showed a “building line” around the subdivision, but the irregular, meandering shoreline made it difficult to determine precisely how the 20-foot restriction applied on the ground.
- The Wattses began constructing a residence on Lot 4; the Turpins alleged the structure was lakeward of the setback line and would obstruct their lake view.
- Evidence indicated the completed house would obstruct only a small portion of the Turpins’ view (approximately 3.9%).
- Evidence also indicated that requiring compliance by razing and reconstructing would impose substantial cost and hardship (approximately $39,000).
- There was evidence that setback-type restrictions in the area had been inconsistently observed or enforced.
- The Turpins sought a mandatory injunction compelling removal or relocation of the Wattses’ residence.

## Issues

1. How should the plat’s 20-foot “minimum building line” restriction be applied to lots with an irregular shoreline and an imprecisely translatable building line on the plat?
2. Did the evidence require a finding that the Wattses’ residence violated the setback covenant?
3. If a violation existed, did equity require a mandatory injunction compelling removal or relocation of a substantially completed house?

## Decision

- After a bench trial with no requested findings, the trial court entered a general judgment for the Wattses and denied injunctive relief.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The appellate court held the general judgment could be sustained because the record supported either (a) no proven violation given uncertainty in applying the setback, or (b) denial of a mandatory injunction as inequitable even assuming a technical violation.
- The court emphasized the disparity between the slight impairment of the Turpins’ view and the severe hardship and cost of moving or rebuilding the Wattses’ house.

## Legal Principles

- In a bench trial with no requested findings, a general finding implies findings of all facts necessary to support the judgment if supported by substantial evidence; appellate review views the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and defers to credibility determinations.
- Restrictive covenants are not enforced beyond their clear and definite terms; when application of a building-line restriction to physical conditions is uncertain, the party seeking enforcement bears the burden to prove a definite violation.
- A mandatory injunction to remove or relocate a structure is extraordinary and discretionary; equity may deny such relief when it would be oppressive or disproportionate to the benefit obtained.
- In deciding whether to grant mandatory injunctive relief for an alleged covenant violation, courts may weigh the extent of actual injury, the cost and hardship of compliance, uncertainty or technicality of the violation, patterns of enforcement, and the parties’ conduct.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of a mandatory injunction because the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that a setback violation was not clearly established and, in any event, equitable balancing favored denying removal or relocation where the injury was slight and the hardship of compliance was extreme.


Turpin v. Watts, 607 S.W.2d 895 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)