Hill v Community of Damien
S. Ct N. Mex. [1996]
Author:- Sam Biers

Covenants

Relevant Facts: Df Community is a private not for profit corp providing homes to the terminally ill.  Df leased a residence in a subdivision for use as a group home for 4 individuals with AIDS. They were unrelated and each needed some in-home nursing care.  Pls are neighbors who live on the same dead-ended street.  Shortly after the Dfs moved in the Pls noticed an increase in traffic.  There is a covenant which provides that the only purpose is for single family residence purposes.

Legal Issue(s): Whether the residents use of the group home or their whether their status constituted a family within the meaning of the restrictive covenant?

Court’s Holding: Yes 

Procedure: Trial ct ruled for Dfs issued injunction; Stay pending;

Law or Rule(s): In determining enforcement of a restrictive covenant; 1) if language is unclear or ambiguous, resolve in favor of free enjoyment of property and against restriction; 2) restrictions on use of the land are not to be read into the covenant by implication; 3) covenant must be interpreted reasonably, but strictly; 4) words are given their ordinary and intended meaning.

Court Rationale:   The term family is not defined and must be resolved in favor of the free enjoyment of the property.  Both Federal and State govt have expressed a strong policy encouraging locating group homes in single-family residential areas and treating them as if they constituted traditional families.  The group home exhibit’s the kind of stability, permanency and functional lifestyle which is equivalent to that of the traditional family unit.  Other jurisdictions have held that restrictive covenants mandating single-family residences do not bar group homes in which the occupants live as a family unit. 

Plaintiff’s Argument: The term “single family residence” does not include group homes in which unrelated people live together; the purpose of the group home is operated as a commercial enterprise; the group home’s operation has an adverse impact on the neighborhood.

Defendant’s Argument: The covenant does not prohibit the group home and enforcement of the injunction would violate the FHA.