Opinion ID: 877565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Direct evidence of irreparable harm is unnecessary in this type of case.

Text: In an action relating to violations of restrictions which run with the land, it is not necessary that there be direct evidence of damages to the pleading parties. Irreparable harm is presumed. An injunction to enforce a covenant or restriction may issue even absent a showing of the amount of damages caused by the breach. Sandstrom v. Larsen (1978), 59 Haw. 491, 583 P.2d 971, no showing is necessary that the violation has changed the character of the neighborhood. Carter v. Conroy (1976), 25 Ariz. App. 434, 544 P.2d 258. The preliminary injunction, on a prima facie showing, should be granted regardless of relative damage. Gladstone v. Gregory (1979), 95 Nev. 474, 596 P.2d 491. The injunction can issue in the absence of proven damages, Jinkins v. City of Jal (1963), 73 N.M. 173, 386 P.2d 599. Of course, if irreparable harm is shown in the evidence, then the burden of the plaintiff to make a prima facie case is lessened, because then the court balances the hardships between the parties. ( A.J. Industries, Inc. v. Alaska Public Service Com'n (Alaska 1970), 470 P.2d 537, modified on other grounds, 483 P.2d 198.) In addition to the foregoing diversities with the majority opinion, I also disagree with the decision making the petition signed by other residents of the subdivision admissible in evidence. In my opinion, the petition is not relevant to any issue before the District Court. The restrictions are binding upon any owner until a majority of all the owners holding fee simple title to the lots in the addition (excluding certain lots) release the same to all land in the subdivision by an executed and acknowledged instrument in writing. The petition which is offered recites, we, the undersigned residents of Grandview Subdivision, have no objection to the continued use of the premises at 202 Locust as a residence for the members of Kappa Sigma Fraternity. There is no foundation to show that the residents are owners in fee simple of the property involved, nor is it clear from the language of the petition that the signers understood that they were waiving the restrictions which exist with respect to those properties. Fortunately for all of us, legal rights are not decided by majority vote, even if the petition consisted of the majority of owners which it apparently does not. In that situation, I feel it has no relevance and should not be admitted. For the reasons foregoing, I would preserve the injunction in force and remand for a final decision by the District Court. The only difference between my position and that of the majority is that the preliminary injunction is dissolved under the majority opinion, and I would keep it in force. Under both situations, there will be a trial to determine the permanent result here. My purpose in filing this dissent is to assure the members of the Bar that this Court is not unanimous in the narrow construction of the injunctive powers of the District Court.