HILL v. COMMUNITY OF DAMIEN OF MOLOKAI, 911 P.2d 861 

Supreme Court of New Mexico

1996

Chapter

23

Title

Creation and Validity

Page

456

Topic

Creation and Validity

Quick Notes

o         The Df appeals from the district courts ruling in favor of the Pl enjoining further use of the property as a group home for individuals with AIDS.

Court Restrictive Covenant Analysis

1.     First, if the language is unclear or ambiguous,

a.     We will resolve the restrictive covenant in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against restrictions.

2.     Second, we will not read restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the land into the covenant by implication.

3.     Third, we must interpret the covenant reasonably, but strictly, so as not to create an illogical, unnatural, or strained construction.

4.     Fourth, we must give words in the restrictive covenant their ordinary and intended meaning

Book Name

Fundamentals of Modern Property Law: Rabin; Kwall, Kwall.  ISBN:  978-1-59941-053-1.

Issue

o         Whether the restrictive covenant requiring the use for purposes of a single family residence is applicable to a group home?  No, it is against public policy.

Procedure

Trial

o         Held that the restrictive covenant prevented the use of the Community's house as a group home for people with AIDS and issued a permanent injunction against the Community

Supreme

o         Reverse

T-Analysis

Hill

Community

Supreme Court of New Mexico

o         Group Home violates a restrictive covenant

o         The group home is a permitted use under the covenant

o         The purpose of the group home is to provide the residents with a traditional family structure and atmosphere.

o         The term single family residence does not include group homes in which unrelated people live together

o         Enforcing the restrict covenant against the group home would violate the Federal Fair Housing Act.

o          

Family Argument

o         The four, unrelated residents of the group home do not constitute a "single family" as required by the restrictive covenant.

o         The Neighbors contend that the restrictive covenant should be interpreted such that the term "family" encompasses only individuals related by blood or by law

o          

Term Family is Ambiguous

o         The word "family" is not defined in the restrictive covenant.

o         There is nothing in the covenant suggests that it was the intent of the framers to limit the term to a discrete family unit comprised only of individuals related by blood or by law.

o         We Must Resolve ambiguity in favor of free enjoyment of property

o         "family" encompasses a broader group than just related individuals

Neighbors Arg Zoning code is irrelevant

o         The Neighbors argue that the zoning code definition is irrelevant to the scope of the covenant.

o         They point to Singleterry v. City of Albuquerque, in which this Court stated, "It is well established that zoning ordinances cannot relieve private property from valid restrictive covenants if the ordinances are less restrictive."

o          

o         While [the zoning] statute has no direct applicability to private covenants, it is some indication of the type of groups that might logically, as a matter of public policy, be included within the concept of a single family."

o         In the present case, we are not using the zoning ordinances to relieve the Community of its obligations under the restrictive covenant.

o         We are instead looking to the definition of family within the zoning ordinance as persuasive evidence for a proper interpretation of the ambiguous term in the covenant.

o          

o          

Strong Public Policy

o         There is a strong public policy in favor of including small group homes within the definition of the term "family."

o         The federal government has expressed a clear policy in favor of removing barriers preventing individuals with physical and mental disabilities from living in group homes in residential settings and against restrictive definitions of "families" that serve to exclude congregate living arrangements for the disabled.

o         The FHA squarely sets out this important public policy.

o          

o          

o         A court is loathe [dislikes] to restrict a family unit to that composed of persons who are related, one to another, by consanguinity [Relationship by blood or by a common ancestor] or affinity.

o          

o          

o         The controlling factor in considering whether a group of unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit constitutes a family . . . is whether the residents bear the generic character of a relatively permanent functioning family unit

Neighbors argue  (Increased Traffic Impact)

o         The covenant should be interpreted to exclude the group home because the group home's operation has an adverse impact on the neighborhood.

o         The Neighbors point to the trial court's findings that "the amount of vehicular traffic generated by [the] Community's use of the house . . . greatly exceeds what is expected in an average residential area" and that, as a result, "the character of [the] residential neighborhood relative to traffic and to parked vehicles has been significantly altered to the detriment of this residential neighborhood and is [sic] residents."

o          

Neighbors' traffic argument is without merit

o         The amount of traffic generated by the group home simply does not affect the threshold question whether Community's use of the property as a group home violates the restrictive covenant requirement that the property not be used for any purpose other than single-family residence purposes

Facts

Discussion

Reasoning

Rules

Pl HILL (Neighbors)

Df COMMUNITY

Description

o         The Df appeals from the district courts ruling in favor of the Pl enjoining further use of the property as a group home for individuals with AIDS.

Facts

o         The Community is a private, nonprofit corporation which provides homes to people with AIDS as well as other terminal illnesses.

o         In December 1992 the Community leased the residence at 716 Rio Arriba, S.E., Albuquerque, located in a planned subdivision called Four Hills Village, for use as a group home for four individuals with AIDS.

o         The four residents who subsequently moved into the Community's group home were unrelated, and each required some degree of in-home nursing care.

o         The Neighbors that lived on the same dead end noticed an increase in traffic to and from the group home.

Neighbor Arg

o         Group Home violates a restrictive covenant.

Community Arg

o         The group home is a permitted use under the covenant and, alternatively, that enforcing the restrict covenant against the group home would violate the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Covenant

o         No lot shall ever be used for any purpose other than single family residence purposes.

o         No dwelling house located thereon shall ever be used for other than single family residence purposes, nor shall any outbuildings or structure located thereon be used in a manner other than incidental to such family residence purposes.

Neighbors Arg

o         The term single family residence does not include group homes in which unrelated people live together.

Community Arg

o         Enforcing the restrict covenant against the group home would violate the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Community Counterclaimed

o         To permanently enjoin enforcement of the covenant and to recover attorney fees.

Trial Court

o         Held that the restrictive covenant prevented the use of the Community's house as a group home for people with AIDS and issued a permanent injunction against the Community.

o         The trial court entered specific findings that the Community's use of the home generated a significant number of vehicle trips up and down the street and that the increased traffic had detrimentally altered the character of the neighborhood.

Court Restrictive Covenant Analysis

1.     First, if the language is unclear or ambiguous,

a.     We will resolve the restrictive covenant in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against restrictions.

2.     Second, we will not read restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the land into the covenant by implication.

3.     Third, we must interpret the covenant reasonably, but strictly, so as not to create an illogical, unnatural, or strained construction.

4.     Fourth, we must give words in the restrictive covenant their ordinary and intended meaning

Step 1:  Interpretation of restriction (Analysis)

o         Trial court concluded the property was being used for commercial purposes rather than residential purposes.

Court Trial Court is incorrect as a matter of law

o         It is undisputed that the group home is designed to provide the four individuals who live in the house with a traditional family structure, setting, and atmosphere, and that the individuals who reside there use the home much as would any family with a disabled family member.

o         The four residents share communal meals.

o         They provide support for each other socially, emotionally, and financially.

o         They also receive spiritual guidance together from religious leaders who visit them on Tuesday evenings

Court Community Worker

o         A Community worker remains at the house during the afternoon and evening but does not reside at the home.

o         The Community, in turn, collects rent from the residents based on the amount of social security income the residents receive, and it enforces a policy of no drinking or drug use in the home.

Court South Carolina Supreme Court

o         Other jurisdictions which have held that the incident necessities of operating a group home such as maintaining records, filing accounting reports, managing, supervising, and providing care for individuals in exchange for monetary compensation are collateral to the prime purpose and function of a family housekeeping unit.

o         Hence, these activities do not, in and of themselves, change the character of a residence from private to commercial.

Court Oklahoma Supreme Court

o         The essential purpose of the group home is to create a normal family atmosphere dissimilar from that found in traditional institutional care for the mentally handicapped.

o         The operation of a group home is thus distinguishable from a use that is commercial--i.e., a boarding house that provides food and lodging only--or is institutional in character.

Court Group Home

o         The purpose of the group home is to provide the residents with a traditional family structure and atmosphere.

o         Accordingly, we conclude as a matter of law that, given the undisputed facts regarding how the Community operates the group home and regarding the nature of the family life in the home, the home is used for residential purposes in compliance with the restrictive covenant.

Residents of Group Home Meet Single Family Requirement

Neighbors argue

o         The four, unrelated residents of the group home do not constitute a "single family" as required by the restrictive covenant.

o         The Neighbors contend that the restrictive covenant should be interpreted such that the term "family" encompasses only individuals related by blood or by law.

Court - We disagree.

.

Court Term Family is Ambiguous

o         The word "family" is not defined in the restrictive covenant.

o         There is nothing in the covenant suggests that it was the intent of the framers to limit the term to a discrete family unit comprised only of individuals related by blood or by law.

o         We Must Resolve ambiguity in favor of free enjoyment of property.

Rule of Construction

o         This rule of construction therefore militates [influences] in favor of a conclusion that the term "family" encompasses a broader group than just related individuals and against restricting the use of the property solely to a traditional nuclear family.

Neighbors Arg Zoning code is irrelevant

o         The Neighbors argue that the zoning code definition is irrelevant to the scope of the covenant.

o         They point to Singleterry v. City of Albuquerque, in which this Court stated, "It is well established that zoning ordinances cannot relieve private property from valid restrictive covenants if the ordinances are less restrictive."

Court Agree with  Colorado Court of Appeals

o         While [the zoning] statute has no direct applicability to private covenants, it is some indication of the type of groups that might logically, as a matter of public policy, be included within the concept of a single family."

o         In the present case, we are not using the zoning ordinances to relieve the Community of its obligations under the restrictive covenant.

o         We are instead looking to the definition of family within the zoning ordinance as persuasive evidence for a proper interpretation of the ambiguous term in the covenant.

o         The Albuquerque zoning ordinance would include the residents of the group home within its definition of family.

Strong Public Policy

o         There is a strong public policy in favor of including small group homes within the definition of the term "family."

o         The federal government has expressed a clear policy in favor of removing barriers preventing individuals with physical and mental disabilities from living in group homes in residential settings and against restrictive definitions of "families" that serve to exclude congregate living arrangements for the disabled.

o         The FHA squarely sets out this important public policy.

United States v. Scott

o         "The legislative history of the amended Fair Housing Act reflects the national policy of deinstitutionalizing disabled individuals and integrating them into the mainstream of society."

o         The Scott court further noted that the Act "is intended to prohibit special restrictive covenants or other terms or conditions, or denials of service because of an individual's handicap and which . . . exclude, for example, congregate living arrangements for persons with handicaps."

In New Mexico, the Developmental Disabilities Act

o         This Act expresses a clear state policy in favor of integrating disabled individuals into communities.

o         The Act provides in relevant part:

o    It is the purpose of the legislature in enacting the Developmental Disabilities Act . . . to promote opportunities for all persons with developmental disabilities to live, work and participate with their peers in New Mexico communities.

o    Priority shall be given to the development and implementation of support and services for persons with developmental disabilities that will enable and encourage them to . . . achieve their greatest potential for independent and productive living by participating in inclusive community activities; and . . . live in their own homes and apartments or in facilities located within their own communities and in contact with other persons living in their communities.

Court Family Unit Composition

o         Other jurisdictions have consistently held that restrictive covenants mandating single-family residences do not bar group homes in which the occupants live as a family unit.

Prohibits occupancy of more than one family unit

o         When . . . the restrictive covenant under consideration prohibits occupancy of more than one family unit but does not address itself to the composition of the family, a court is loathe to restrict a family unit to that composed of persons who are related, one to another, by consanguinity [Relationship by blood or by a common ancestor] or affinity.

Court Rejects the Neighbors family argument definition.

o         The controlling factor in considering whether a group of unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit constitutes a family . . . is whether the residents bear the generic character of a relatively permanent functioning family unit.

Findings Regarding Increased Traffic

Neighbors argue  (Increased Traffic Impact)

o         The covenant should be interpreted to exclude the group home because the group home's operation has an adverse impact on the neighborhood.

o         The Neighbors point to the trial court's findings that "the amount of vehicular traffic generated by [the] Community's use of the house . . . greatly exceeds what is expected in an average residential area" and that, as a result, "the character of [the] residential neighborhood relative to traffic and to parked vehicles has been significantly altered to the detriment of this residential neighborhood and is [sic] residents."

Court Neighbors' traffic argument is without merit

o         The amount of traffic generated by the group home simply does not affect the threshold question whether Community's use of the property as a group home violates the restrictive covenant requirement that the property not be used for any purpose other than single-family residence purposes.

o         Accordingly, because the covenants do not regulate traffic or off-street parking, and because the amount of traffic generated by the group home is irrelevant to whether the home is used for single-family residential purposes, we conclude that the Neighbors' argument is without merit.

Rules

Class Notes