Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Non-Residential or Commercial Activity

Listen to this article

Saad Holdings’ use of property to access docks was lawful under the restrictive covenants, and speculative concerns or extreme interpretations advanced by the homeowners could not justify equitable relief.

We affirmed.

An action arose from a dispute between homeowners and a property owner regarding the interpretation and enforcement of restrictive covenants in the Providence Point subdivision on Lake Hartwell. Appellants sought a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent Saad Holdings, LLC, from walking across its undeveloped lots to access privately owned docks. The homeowners argued that such use violated covenants restricting all lots to “residential purposes,” contending that Saad’s access for recreational purposes exceeded what the covenants allowed and interfered with their property rights. The circuit court denied the injunction, concluding that Saad’s use did not violate the covenants and that enforcing the homeowners’ restrictive interpretation would produce absurd results and contravene public policy.

Saad acquired three small, lakefront lots in 2021 that were originally a single, undersized parcel, making construction of a residential dwelling practically impossible under the covenants’ dimensional requirements. Saad obtained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for two docks, ran power and water to the docks, and used the lots solely to park and walk across to access these docks. Importantly, there was no evidence that Saad engaged in any commercial activity or built structures on the lots, and the Homeowners admitted that no nuisance currently existed, though they speculated about potential future harms. Saad maintained that the covenants’ overall intent was to preserve a residential character, and that his limited use of the property was consistent with that purpose, while the homeowners focused narrowly on one covenant clause, arguing that even minimal recreational use violated it.

On appeal, we reviewed whether the circuit court erred in interpreting the covenants as clear and unambiguous, characterizing Saad’s use as compliant, and addressing whether enforcing the homeowners’ interpretation would violate public policy. Applying established principles of restrictive covenant construction, covenants are contractual, must be interpreted in light of the whole document, and ambiguities should be construed in favor of the least restriction on property use. We considered both South Carolina precedent and analogous cases from other jurisdictions, including Voedisch v. Town of Wolfeboro and Villazon v. Osborne, which found that limited recreational use of vacant lots for dock access did not constitute a violation of covenants restricting lots to “residential purposes.”

We concluded that Saad’s use of the property, walking across his lots to access docks, did not constitute a non-residential or commercial activity and therefore did not violate the restrictive covenants. The covenants were not ambiguous, the use was consistent with the residential purpose of the subdivision, and enforcing the homeowners’ narrow interpretation would result in absurd outcomes that unduly restricted property rights.

Affirmed.

Hoffman v. Saad Holdings LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-012-26, 7 pp.) (Paula H. Thomas, J.) Appealed from Anderson County Circuit Court (R. Scott Sprouse, J.) Daniel L. Draisen, of The Injury Law Firm, PC, of Anderson, for Appellants. Joshua Brent Raffini, of Pruitt & Pruitt, of Anderson, for Respondents. South Carolina Court of Appeals