Opinion ID: 2595534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Challenges Based on Violations of Public Policy

Text: ¶ 33 The test of whether a contractual provision violates public policy is `whether the contract as made has a tendency to evil, to be against the public good, or to be injurious to the public.' Thayer v. Thompson, 36 Wash.App. 794, 796, 677 P.2d 787 (1984) (quoting Golberg v. Sanglier, 27 Wash.App. 179, 191, 616 P.2d 1239 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 96 Wash.2d 874, 639 P.2d 1347 (1982)). Before we will find a restrictive covenant to be in conflict with public policy, the record must demonstrate a legislative intent to declare a general public policy sufficient to override a contractual property right. Mains Farm, 121 Wash.2d at 823, 854 P.2d 1072. A clear demonstration of such intent is especially important in light of the constitutional takings questions that are implicated by the potential violation of such property rights. Id. ¶ 34 In Mains Farm, as noted supra, we affirmed the issuance of an injunction enjoining the operation of an adult family home on a property restricted by covenant to single-family residential purposes, even though the legislature had provided that adult family homes were to be considered residential for zoning purposes. We reasoned in part that [w]hen the legislature intends to affect a private land use restriction ( i.e., a covenant) as compared to zoning, it does so explicitly. . . . Id. at 823, 854 P.2d 1072 (emphasis omitted).