Title: Chesterfield Meadows Shopping Center Assoc. v. Smi
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 012519
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: September 13, 2002

Present:  All the Justices 
 
CHESTERFIELD MEADOWS SHOPPING CENTER 
 ASSOCIATES, L.P., ET AL. 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 012519 
JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. 
 
 
 
September 13, 2002 
A. DALE SMITH 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 
William R. Shelton, Judge 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether the chancellor 
correctly determined that a change in conditions rendered a 
restrictive covenant on the use of land null and void. 
BACKGROUND 
This is the second time that the validity of the 
restrictive covenant under consideration has been the subject of 
an appeal before this Court.  In Smith v. Chesterfield Meadows 
Shopping Center, 259 Va. 82, 86, 523 S.E.2d 834, 836 (2000), we 
reversed the chancellor’s judgment sustaining a demurrer and 
remanded the case for further proceedings.  The present appeal 
arises from those proceedings.  Most of the pertinent facts, but 
not all, are either stipulated or undisputed by the parties. 
In 1979, Judge Ernest P. Gates and his wife, Virginia Y. 
Gates (“the Gates”) owned and occupied an historic home known as 
“Wrexham Hall” located on a 5.5-acre tract on the south side of 
Centralia Road at its intersection with State Route 10 in 
Chesterfield County.  Richard M. Allen owned an undeveloped 
tract, consisting of approximately 5.5 acres, on the north side 
of Centralia Road directly opposite from the Gates’ property. 
On April 17, 1980, Allen and the Gates executed a 
restrictive covenant affecting Allen’s property.  This covenant 
provided that Allen’s property was to be “used only for the 
purposes mentioned and allowed by the Special Conditional Use 
Permit granted by the Board of Supervisors on November 28, 1979, 
in case # 79S101A for an office complex as reflected in the 
official minutes of the meeting.”  This covenant purportedly 
would run with the land for a period of sixty years from the 
date of the covenant.  On July 14, 1980, Allen recorded this 
covenant in the land records of Chesterfield County. 
Thereafter, Allen conveyed approximately 2 acres of his 
property to Centralia Associates by deed dated December 30, 
1980.  Centralia Associates then conveyed this acreage to 
A. Dale Smith by deed dated January 13, 1981.  Both deeds were 
recorded in the land records of Chesterfield County on January 
26, 1981. 
On February 28, 1985, the Gates conveyed their property to 
Pioneer Financial Corporation subject to a restrictive covenant 
requiring that Wrexham Hall remain on the property or be 
relocated to “another residential location.”  Subsequently, 
Wrexham Hall was appropriately relocated, and its former site 
was rezoned to “Commercial” use.  Pioneer conveyed a portion of 
 
2
the property to Chesterfield Meadows Shopping Center Associates, 
L.P. and Ukrop’s Super Markets, Inc. (collectively 
“Chesterfield”).1  Chesterfield constructed a shopping center on 
its property. 
On February 26, 1996, Smith entered into a letter of intent 
with Trion Ventures, L.C. for the sale of her property.  Trion 
Ventures planned to build a Walgreen’s drug store on the 
property.  On April 23, 1997, the Chesterfield County Board of 
Supervisors approved the rezoning of Smith’s property from 
“Agricultural” to “Neighborhood Business,” which would have 
permitted the proposed development of the drug store to go 
forward. 
Smith sought an agreement from Chesterfield to release the 
restrictive covenant and allow the commercial development of her 
property.  In a letter dated April 9, 1998, Chesterfield advised 
Smith that it would not agree with her to release the 
restrictive covenant. 
On June 24, 1998, Smith and Allen, whose retained portion 
of the property had been rezoned for commercial development, 
filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield 
County, pursuant to Code § 55-153, seeking to have the April 17, 
                     
1 Another portion of the property was conveyed to Taco Bell 
Corporation.  That corporation, however, is not a party to this 
appeal. 
 
 
3
1980 restrictive covenant declared void.  The bill of complaint 
alleged that the restrictive covenant was “intended to protect 
the historical nature of Wrexham [Hall]” and that changed 
conditions warranted that the covenant be declared void. 
Following our remand in the first appeal, Allen, who had 
sold his retained portion of the property, withdrew from the 
action.  On April 21, 2000, Smith filed an amended bill of 
complaint, alleging that the restrictive covenant was intended 
to protect from commercial development not only Wrexham Hall, 
“but also the area near the historic Chesterfield Courthouse” in 
the vicinity of Wrexham Hall.2
An ore tenus hearing was held on April 2, 2001.  In 
addition to the stipulation of the above recited facts and 
various exhibits, the chancellor received the testimony of 
several witnesses.  Judge Gates testified that he initially 
objected to the 1979 rezoning of Allen’s property and the 
                     
2 Smith further alleged that the restrictive covenant was 
personal only because there was no horizontal privity between 
the Gates and Allen when the covenant was created and, thus, 
Chesterfield could not enforce the covenant as the Gates’ 
successor-in-interest.  The chancellor did not reach this issue, 
and Smith has not raised it as an alternative basis for 
upholding the chancellor’s judgment.  Accordingly, we express no 
opinion on the issue.  We note, however, that the enforceability 
of a restrictive covenant to the benefit or burden of remote 
successors-in-interest is subject to strict elements of proof, 
including proof of horizontal privity between the original 
parties to the covenant.  See Sonoma Development, Inc. v. 
Miller, 258 Va. 163, 167 and n.3, 515 S.E.2d 577, 579 and n.3 
(1999). 
 
4
granting of a special use permit for an office complex, but 
ultimately agreed to support Allen’s request for that rezoning 
if Allen would agree to execute the restrictive covenant.  He 
explained that the use of Allen’s property for an office complex 
would conform to the use of other properties in the vicinity of 
Wrexham Hall and other historic buildings nearby. 
Judge Gates further testified that he objected to the 
commercial development of Allen’s property because he “wanted to 
protect Wrexham [Hall].”  When asked on cross examination 
whether he would agree that his purpose in obtaining Allen’s 
agreement to the covenant was not focused solely on Wrexham 
Hall, but rather on the entire vicinity, he replied that “I 
would like to think it was, but I’m not sure.  I think primarily 
my interest was [in] Wrexham [Hall], because that’s what I owned 
and it was something I wanted to protect.”  Allen also testified 
that he had agreed to the covenant to resolve Judge Gates’ 
objection to his rezoning request. 
During Smith’s testimony at the hearing, a video tape was 
played reflecting the extensive commercial development which has 
occurred since 1979 along Route 10 in the vicinity of Wrexham 
Hall’s prior location.  In addition to Chesterfield’s shopping 
center and another shopping center, that development included, 
among other uses, several banks, service stations, a drug store, 
two grocery stores, and five fast-food restaurants. 
 
5
In an opinion letter dated July 31, 2001, the chancellor, 
relying particularly upon the testimony of Judge Gates, found 
that the primary purpose of the 1979 restrictive covenant was to 
protect Wrexham Hall against commercial development of property 
in the area in which it was then located and “to some extent” to 
protect one other historic property.  After noting that Wrexham 
Hall had been relocated and replaced by Chesterfield’s shopping 
center, the chancellor further found that much of the 
surrounding area had been “transformed [from] once serene 
farmland, to a thriving commercial area.”  Based upon this 
change in local conditions, the chancellor concluded that “the 
essential objects and purposes of the [covenant] are practically 
destroyed, and the covenant is null and void.”3
On August 13, 2001, the chancellor entered a final decree 
of judgment for Smith, incorporating by reference the findings 
of fact and conclusions of law as stated in the July 31, 2001 
opinion letter.  By order dated February 25, 2002, we awarded 
Chesterfield this appeal. 
                     
3 The chancellor further concluded that Smith was not barred 
by estoppel, laches, or the doctrine of unclean hands in seeking 
relief in equity, as Chesterfield had contended.  We agree with 
the chancellor’s judgment on these issues and, in light of our 
view of the dispositive issue in this appeal, need not address 
further Chesterfield’s assignment of error thereto. 
 
 
6
DISCUSSION 
We begin our analysis using well established principles of 
appellate review.  “When the chancellor hears evidence ore 
tenus, his decree is entitled to the same weight as a jury 
verdict, and we are bound by the chancellor’s findings of fact 
unless they are plainly wrong or without evidence to support 
them.”  Hoffman Family, L.L.C. v. Mill Two Associates 
Partnership, 259 Va. 685, 696, 529 S.E.2d 318, 325 (2000). 
In our prior review of this case, we concluded that the 
covenant between the Gates and Allen was “silent as to [its] 
purpose” and, thus, “the introduction of evidence on that 
subject [was not prohibited], since such evidence would not be 
considered a factual allegation contradicted by the terms of the 
document.”  Smith, 259 Va. at 85, 523 S.E.2d at 836.  
Nonetheless, Chesterfield contends that the chancellor erred in 
determining that the purpose of the restrictive covenant was 
other than as “stated on the face of the covenant.”  In support 
of this contention, Chesterfield points to Allen’s admitted 
motivation to gain the Gates’ support for his request to obtain 
a special use permit.4  Thus, Chesterfield concludes that, 
regardless of the Gates’ motivation, the purpose of the 
                     
4 The Board of Supervisors made the creation of the 
restrictive covenant a condition of the rezoning of Allen’s 
property and the granting of the special use permit in 1979. 
 
 
7
restrictive covenant was to restrict the use of Allen’s property 
to office development and “not [for] some broader purpose 
relating to preservation of Wrexham [Hall] or any other 
property.”  We disagree. 
“Valid covenants restricting the free use of land, although 
widely used, are not favored and must be strictly construed 
. . . .  Substantial doubt or ambiguity is to be resolved 
against the restrictions and in favor of the free use of 
property.”  Woodward v. Morgan, 252 Va. 135, 138, 475 S.E.2d 
808, 810 (1996).  The restrictive covenant here did not provide 
reciprocal benefits to the Gates’ property and to Allen’s 
property.  Whatever Allen’s motivation for agreeing to the 
covenant may have been, the covenant placed a significant burden 
on the use of his property by Allen and by Smith, Allen’s 
successor-in-interest, by restricting commercial use of the 
property.  Judge Gates testified that such a restriction would 
benefit his property.  Accordingly, we are of opinion that the 
chancellor quite properly gave greater weight to the testimony 
of Judge Gates, a party who received the direct benefit of the 
restrictive covenant, in determining that the purpose of the 
covenant was the protection of Wrexham Hall and another historic 
property in the immediate vicinity.  
Chesterfield next contends that the chancellor erred in 
awarding relief “based upon facts which are at variance with 
 
8
plaintiff’s pleadings.”  Chesterfield asserts that the 
chancellor’s finding that the purpose of the restrictive 
covenant was limited to protecting only Wrexham Hall and one 
other property is contrary to Smith’s assertion in the amended 
bill of complaint that the Gates were concerned with the 
preservation of a much broader area surrounding their property 
and, thus, cannot support a judgment in her favor.  Again, we 
disagree. 
The cases Chesterfield cites in support of this proposition 
are all inapposite to the facts of this case.  In each of those 
cases, the facts pled did not support the legal theory for the 
judgment sought or rendered.  See, e.g., Ted Lansing Supply Co. 
v. Royal Aluminum, 221 Va. 1139, 1142, 277 S.E.2d 228, 230 
(1981) (judgment founded upon implied warranty could not be 
rendered where only express warranty was pled).  Here, by 
contrast, the legal theory under which Smith sought relief was 
applicable both to the facts as pled, and the more limited view 
of the facts actually proved as found by the chancellor.  So 
long as those facts were sufficient to support the legal theory 
of the relief sought, the chancellor did not err in awarding 
that relief. 
Finally, we turn to Chesterfield’s contention that the 
chancellor erred in concluding that Smith carried her burden to 
prove that changed conditions have defeated the purpose of the 
 
9
restrictive covenant rendering it null and void.  The 
determination of the degree of change necessary to have this 
effect is inherently a fact-specific analysis in each case.  
However, we have previously made it clear that such a change 
“must be so radical as practically to destroy the essential 
objects and purposes of the [covenant].”  Booker v. Old Dominion 
Land Co., 188 Va. 143, 148, 49 S.E.2d 314, 317 (1948). 
The undisputed facts in the record clearly support the 
chancellor’s conclusion that the area surrounding the former 
location of Wrexham Hall had been “transformed [from] once 
serene farm land, to a thriving commercial area.”  Such a 
radical change satisfies the standard articulated in Booker and 
its progeny, and we are unable seriously to entertain the notion 
that any purpose consistent with the covenant would be served by 
permitting the restriction imposed thereby on the use of Smith’s 
property to continue.  Accordingly, we hold that the chancellor 
did not err in ruling that Smith established the necessary 
change in conditions to destroy the purpose of the covenant. 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the 
chancellor declaring the restrictive covenant agreement between 
the Gates and Allen to be null and void. 
Affirmed. 
 
10