Court Opinion

ID: 9381990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 15:01:40.998844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.353458
License: Public Domain

Rel: March 24, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

         SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023

                                _________________________

                                      SC-2022-0723
                                _________________________

                                         Trevor Cole

                                                  v.

Arthur M. Davis, Ronald F. Ham, Patricia G. Hooper, Thomas R.
   Miller, Sara A. Minor, June Montgomery, Jill Murray, and
                           Debbie Rice

                       Appeal from Madison Circuit Court
                                 (CV-21-900855)

COOK, Justice.

       This appeal arises from an action to enforce restrictive covenants
SC-2022-0723

within a subdivision. The plaintiffs are the owners of different lots:

Arthur M. Davis, Ronald F. Ham, Patricia G. Hooper, Thomas R. Miller,

Sara A. Minor, June Montgomery, Jill Murray, and Debbie Rice ("the lot

owners").   They sought an injunction to prevent Trevor Cole from

subdividing his lot. The Madison Circuit Court entered a summary

judgment in favor of the lot owners and issued the injunction.

     On appeal, Cole argues (1) that the restrictive covenants should not

be enforced for various equitable reasons (because of the "relative

hardship" enforcing the covenants would allegedly impose upon him;

because the "character of the neighborhood" has allegedly changed

"radically" since the covenants were adopted; and because a majority of

the other property owners in the subdivision, including some of the lot

owners, have waived enforcement of the covenants), (2) that he should

have been provided certain discovery before the entry of the summary

judgment, and (3) that necessary or indispensable parties to the action

were absent. We reject each of these arguments and affirm.

                     Facts and Procedural History

     Kirkwood Heights ("the subdivision") is a residential subdivision

located in Huntsville. The subdivision, like many other subdivisions, has

                                   2
SC-2022-0723

a set of restrictive covenants known as the "Kirkwood Heights

Restrictions" ("the Kirkwood Heights covenants"), which dictate what

property owners in the subdivision can and cannot do with their property.

The Kirkwood Heights covenants provide, in pertinent part:

     "1 -- BUILDING LOCATION: No Building shall be located on
     any lot nearer to the front lot line or nearer to the side street
     line than the minimum building setback lines shown on the
     recorded plat. In any event no building shall be located on any
     lot nearer than 30 feet to the front lot line, or nearer than 30
     feet to the side street line …. No dwelling shall be located on
     any interior lot nearer than 40 feet to the rear lot line.

     "2 -- LOT AREA AND WIDTH: No dwelling shall be erected
     or placed on any lot having a width of less than 85 feet at the
     minimum building setback line, nor shall any dwelling be
     erected or placed on any lot having an area of less than 11,900
     square feet.

     "3 -- LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE: No lot shall be used
     except for residential purposes. No building shall be erected,
     altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than
     one detached single-family dwelling ….

     "….

     "15 -- TERM: These covenants are to run with the land and
     shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under
     them for a period of twenty-five years from the date these
     covenants are recorded, after which time said covenants shall
     be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years
     unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners
     of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change said
                                    3
SC-2022-0723

     covenants in whole or in part.

     "16 -- ENFORCEMENT: Enforcement shall be by proceedings
     at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or
     attempting to violate any covenant either to restrain violation
     or to recover damages.

     "17 -- SEVERABILITY: Invalidation of any one of these
     covenants by judgment or court order shall in no wise affect
     any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force
     and effect."

(Emphasis added.)

     According to the record, in 2016 the owner of a particular lot in the

subdivision -- Lot 14 -- requested that the Kirkwood Heights covenants

be amended to allow that owner to subdivide the lot. Pursuant to

paragraph 15 in those covenants, that owner recorded an "Amendment

and Waiver" ("the 2016 waiver") to the Kirkwood Heights covenants in

the Madison Probate Court, in which a majority of the property owners

in the subdivision, including some of the lot owners, agreed to amend

those covenants as follows:

           "1. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 2 [of the
     Kirkwood Heights covenants] to the contrary, Lot 14, Block 5
     may be subdivided and the resulting Lot(s) shall have a width
     of no less than 60 feet at the minimum building setback line
     and may have a minimum Lot area of 7,500 square feet.

           "2. Except as herein changed, all other restrictions

                                      4
SC-2022-0723

     and/or covenants recorded … shall remain in full force and
     effect."

(Emphasis added.)

     In 2018, Cole bought his lot -- Lot 1 -- located in the subdivision. He

does not dispute that he had actual knowledge of the Kirkwood Heights

covenants. He also claims that he had knowledge of the 2016 waiver and

alleges that he relied upon it when purchasing his lot. Despite his

knowledge of the Kirkwood Heights covenants, including the lot-size and

width restrictions in paragraph 2, Cole submitted to the City of

Huntsville a proposed plat in which Cole noted his intention to work with

Augustus Homes, LLC, to subdivide his lot into two residential lots.

According to Cole, his intent was to build two high-end homes on the

subdivided lots and market them to the public. At no point before doing

this, however, did Cole attempt to seek an "Amendment and Waiver" to

the Kirkwood Heights covenants similar to the 2016 waiver.

     On July 8, 2021, the lot owners commenced this action. Attached

to their complaint were copies of the following certified documents: (1)

the "Kirkwood Heights Subdivision Plat Map"; (2) the Kirkwood Heights

covenants; (3) the 2016 waiver; and (4) Cole's deed to his lot.

     A few days later, Cole filed his answer, in which he raised various
                                     5
SC-2022-0723

affirmative defenses, including, among others, the "relative-hardship"

defense and waiver. He also filed a counterclaim against the lot owners,

asserting tortious interference with his ongoing business relationship

with Augustus Homes and civil conspiracy. He did not seek a judgment

declaring the validity, scope, or enforceability of the Kirkwood Heights

covenants.

     Shortly thereafter, Cole served requests for production to the lot

owners, along with a deposition notice for each lot owner. In the

deposition notices, Cole proposed multiple dates and times, leaving the

dates and times subject to negotiation among the parties. It does not

appear from the record that the lot owners responded to any of Cole's

discovery requests.

     Cole also filed a motion pursuant to Rule 19, Ala. R. Civ. P., to

require the lot owners to add all the other property owners in the

subdivision as necessary or indispensable parties. The trial court denied

Cole's motion, and Cole filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this

Court, which we denied. Ex parte Cole (No. 1200828, Sept. 24, 2021).

Neither the trial court, nor this Court, granted a stay during the

pendency of that mandamus petition.

                                   6
SC-2022-0723

     On September 7, 2021, the lot owners filed a motion for a summary

judgment in which they argued that there were no genuine issues of

material fact in this case because Alabama law is clear that unambiguous

restrictive covenants like the ones at issue in this case are enforceable

and that an injunction is the appropriate remedy for the breach of such

covenants. They further argued that, to the extent that Cole contended

that the Kirkwood Heights covenants were unenforceable under either

the "relative-hardship" test or the "change-in-the-neighborhood" test,

Cole could not demonstrate either that enforcing them would create a

relative hardship on him and similar property owners in the subdivision

or that the character of the subdivision had changed so drastically that

the Kirkwood Heights covenants no longer accomplished their original

purpose. Finally, they argued that Cole could not prevail on either his

tortious-interference claim or his civil-conspiracy claim because their

efforts to enjoin Cole's subdivision of his lot were justified under the law.

In support of their motion, the lot owners incorporated by reference the

certified copies of the documents that they had attached to their

complaint.

     Cole timely filed a response in opposition to the summary-judgment

                                     7
SC-2022-0723

motion and argued that, contrary to the lot owners' contentions, genuine

issues of material fact existed as to whether the Kirkwood Heights

covenants prevented him from being able to subdivide his lot because a

majority of the property owners in the subdivision had previously

consented to a waiver of the lot-size and width provisions in paragraph 2

of the Kirkwood Heights covenants in the 2016 waiver and because, he

said, there had been a general failure to enforce other covenant

violations. Cole further argued that, pursuant to Rule 56(f), Ala. R. Civ.

P., summary judgment was inappropriate until he was able to conduct

some discovery on the claims alleged by the lot owners. He also argued

that the balancing of factors under the relative-hardship test or the

change-in-the-neighborhood test weighed against the enforcement of the

Kirkwood Heights covenants in this case. Finally, he argued that,

without some discovery, the trial court also could not make a

determination as to whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to

his tortious-interference claim or his civil-conspiracy claim.

     In support of his response in opposition to the summary-judgment

motion, Cole included, pursuant to Rule 56(f), an affidavit from his trial

counsel, Robert Presto, who confirmed that, despite his efforts, the lot

                                     8
SC-2022-0723

owners had failed to respond to any of Cole's discovery requests. On

October 18, 2021 -- three days before the date set for the hearing on the

summary-judgment motion -- Cole also filed a motion to compel responses

to his discovery requests.

     Other than the affidavit of his counsel under Rule 56(f), Cole did

not file any evidence in opposition to the summary-judgment motion.

However, at the hearing on the motion, he provided several exhibits,

including (1) a tax assessor's plat of the entire subdivision, (2) various

printouts from the tax assessor's office relating to other property in the

subdivision, (3) a petition signed by 108 people claiming to be residents

of the subdivision and opposing the subdivision of Cole's lot, (4) a picture

of Cole's lot, (5) a notice of violation of the Kirkwood Heights covenants

based on trash on Cole's lot, and (6) pictures of signs on other properties

in the subdivision. There is no indication in the record that any of those

documents were certified by affidavit or otherwise authenticated.

     On October 21, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the summary-

judgment motion.1 The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor

     1A   transcript of that hearing was not included in the record on
appeal.
                                     9
SC-2022-0723

of the lot owners on March 16, 2022, enjoining Cole and "his successors

and assigns" from subdividing Lot 1 "without adhering to and complying

with the procedure(s) set out in the applicable" Kirkwood Heights

covenants. The trial court also entered a summary judgment in favor of

the lot owners on Cole's tortious-interference and civil-conspiracy claims.

Cole appeals.

                           Standard of Review

                 " ' "This Court's review of a summary
           judgment is de novo. Williams v. State Farm Mut.
           Auto. Ins. Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 (Ala. 2003). We
           apply the same standard of review as the trial
           court applied. Specifically, we must determine
           whether the movant has made a prima facie
           showing that no genuine issue of material fact
           exists and that the movant is entitled to a
           judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R.
           Civ. P.; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v.
           Hodurski, 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 (Ala. 2004). In
           making such a determination, we must review the
           evidence in the light most favorable to the
           nonmovant. Wilson v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758
           (Ala. 1986). Once the movant makes a prima facie
           showing that there is no genuine issue of material
           fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to
           produce 'substantial evidence' as to the existence
           of a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v.
           SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d
           794, 797-98 (Ala. 1989); Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-
           12. '[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence of such
           weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the
           exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably
                                    10
SC-2022-0723

           infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.'
           West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Fla., 547 So.
           2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989)." '

     "Prince v. Poole, 935 So. 2d 431, 442 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Dow
     v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 (Ala.
     2004))."

Brown v. W.P. Media, Inc., 17 So. 3d 1167, 1169 (Ala. 2009).

                                Discussion

     Our Court has previously recognized that, as a general matter,

"restrictive covenants are not favored in the law and will therefore be

strictly construed by this Court." Lange v. Scofield, 567 So. 2d 1299, 1301

(Ala. 1990). "All doubts must be resolved against the restriction and in

favor of free and unrestricted use of the property." Id.

     However, when the language of a restrictive covenant is not "of

doubtful meaning [or] ambiguous," the language of that covenant "is

entitled to be given the effect of its plain and manifest meaning." Laney

v. Early, 292 Ala. 227, 231-32, 292 So. 2d 103, 107 (1974). "If 'there is no

inconsistency or ambiguity within a restrictive covenant, the clear and

plain language of the covenant is enforceable by injunctive relief.' " Hipsh

v. Graham Creek Estates Owners Ass'n, 927 So. 2d 846, 848 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2005) (quoting Carpenter v. Davis, 688 So. 2d 256, 258 (Ala. 1997)).

                                    11
SC-2022-0723

That proposition of law takes precedence over the disfavor that our Court

has previously shown toward restrictions of the use of land. Laney, 292

Ala. at 231, 292 So. 2d at 106-07.

     In Tubbs v. Brandon, 374 So. 2d 1358, 1361 (Ala. 1979), this Court

stated:

           "When a restrictive covenant is broken, … an injunction
     should be issued because the mere breach of the covenant is a
     sufficient basis for interference by injunction. The right to
     enjoin such a breach will not depend upon whether the
     covenantee will be damaged by the breach. Reetz v. Ellis, 279
     Ala. 453, 186 So.2d 915 (1966)."

(Emphasis added.)

     In the present case, neither side argues that the Kirkwood Heights

covenants are ambiguous. It is also undisputed that Cole's proposed

subdivision of his lot violates the Kirkwood Heights covenants in the

following ways: (1) it proposes creating 2 lots that would each be

approximately 65 feet wide and, thus, would not comply with the

minimum 85-foot width per lot set forth in paragraph 2 of the Kirkwood

Heights covenants and (2) it proposes creating 2 lots that would each be

approximately 9,000 square feet and, thus, would not comply with the

minimum square footage of 11,900 square feet per lot set forth in

paragraph 2 for the Kirkwood Heights covenants.
                                     12
SC-2022-0723

     Although, as noted earlier, the breach of a restrictive covenant is,

by itself, enough to warrant the issuance of an injunction, in Lange this

Court stated that enforcement of covenants running with land " 'is

governed by equitable principles, and will not be decreed if, under the

facts of the particular case, it would be inequitable and unjust.' " 567 So.

2d at 1302 (quoting 20 Am. Jur. 2d Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions

§ 313 (1965)).

     Our appellate courts have previously evaluated the enforceability

of restrictive covenants like the Kirkwood Heights covenants by applying

two independent, alternative equitable tests -- the relative-hardship test

and the change-in-the-neighborhood test. This Court, in Lange, created

an exception to the holding in Tubbs, providing that when a party

opposing the enforceability of a covenant can meet its burden under

either of these tests, the covenant should be held unenforceable.

                          Relative-Hardship Test

     If " 'the restrictive covenant has ceased to have any beneficial or

substantial value' " or " 'the defendant will be subject to great hardship or

the consequences would be inequitable,' " a court, applying equitable

principles, of equity will not enforce the covenant. Id. (citation omitted).

                                     13
SC-2022-0723

In Lange, this Court explained:

            " 'The equitable enforcement of a restriction can be
     invoked only for the purpose of protecting the benefit which it
     was the object of the covenant to afford. If the restrictive
     covenant has ceased to have any beneficial or substantial
     value to the ... property, it can form no ground for equitable
     relief. ... [I]f the defendant will be subject to great hardship or
     the consequences would be inequitable, relief will be denied.' "

Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly,

     "if, upon a balancing of the equities, a court determines that
     the harm resulting to one landowner from the enforcement of
     a restrictive covenant would be considerably disproportionate
     to the benefit received by the landowner seeking enforcement,
     a court may decline to afford the landowner seeking
     enforcement the equitable relief of an injunction to redress a
     breach of the restrictive covenant."

Grove Hill Homeowners' Ass'n v. Rice, 90 So. 3d 731, 737 (Ala. Civ. App.

2011). We note, however, that the relative-hardship defense is an

affirmative one, and, thus, the burden is on the party asserting the

defense.

     The lot owners contend that Cole cannot rely on the relative-

hardship test recognized in Lange because Cole had both actual and

constructive notice of the particular covenant -- paragraph 2 of the

Kirkwood Heights covenants -- that he sought to breach. In support of

their argument, the lot owners rely on Maxwell v. Boyd, 66 So. 3d 257

                                       14
SC-2022-0723

(Ala. Civ. App. 2010), wherein the proposition that the relative-hardship

test cannot be applied if the covenant violator had actual or constructive

notice of the covenant appears to have been adopted by the Court of Civil

Appeals. In that case, the party seeking to invoke the relative-hardship

defense had continued to construct a garage in violation of a restrictive

covenant, despite having actual notice of the covenant. The Court of Civil

Appeals concluded that a party seeking to invoke the relative-hardship

test recognized in Lange must have clean hands, and, in applying the

clean-hands doctrine, that court held that "a restrictive covenant should

be enforced if the defendant had knowledge of it before constructing an

improvement contrary to its provisions, even if the harm is

disproportionate." 66 So. 3d at 261 (citing Green v. Lawrence, 877 A.2d

1079, 1082 (Me. 2005), citing in turn 9 Powell on Real Property § 60.10(3).

     The Court of Civil Appeals has repeatedly upheld this proposition.

See, e.g., Grove Hill, 90 So. 3d at 739 (recognizing that the relative-

hardship test cannot be invoked by one who had notice of a restrictive

covenant "to avoid the consequences of [a] breach" of that covenant); and

Heaven's Gate Ministries Int'l, Inc. v. Nejad, 329 So. 3d 643 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2020) (holding that a defendant who had violated a restrictive

                                    15
SC-2022-0723

covenant of which the defendant had constructive notice was not entitled

to a balancing of the equities or to the benefit of the relative-hardship

test).

         Cole does not deny that he had actual, let alone constructive,

knowledge of the lot-size and width requirements in paragraph 2 of the

Kirkwood Heights covenants. Thus, under the legal principles discussed

above, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the relative-hardship

test.

         However, this Court has not developed or applied a hard and fast

rule preventing a party from relying on the relative-hardship defense in

situations in which that party violated a covenant of which it had notice.

Instead, a party's knowledge -- constructive or actual -- of a restrictive

covenant should simply be one factor for a trial court's consideration in

determining whether the resultant harm from enforcement of a

restrictive covenant "would be considerably disproportionate to the

benefit received by the landowner seeking enforcement" of the covenant.

Grove Hill, 90 So. 3d at 737. See, e.g., id. at 742 (Bryan, J., dissenting)("I

would hold that a trial court should consider a party's knowledge of a

restrictive covenant as a factor in applying the relative-hardship test

                                     16
SC-2022-0723

rather than holding that such knowledge precludes the application of the

test."). Indeed, under virtually every circumstance, a property owner

would have at least constructive notice of a recorded restrictive covenant,

and thus the bright-line rule adopted by the Court of Civil appeals would

read the relative-hardship defense out of existence.

     We will therefore proceed to apply the relative-hardship test. Here,

Cole did not provide the trial court with any admissible evidence

indicating that the harm from enforcing the Kirkwood Heights covenants

would be "considerably disproportionate to the benefit received by" the

lot owners. For instance, he has presented no evidence as to whether it

would be feasible for him to build and market a new house while

complying with the lot-size and width requirements in paragraph 2 of the

Kirkwood Heights covenants or as to what financial impact complying

with those covenants might have on him. Likewise, he has presented no

evidence regarding whether other property owners in the subdivision

would be helped or hurt by enforcing the Kirkwood Heights covenants

(for instance, valuation testimony) or whether there would be any other

                                    17
SC-2022-0723

significant impacts resulting from the enforcement of those covenants.2

Under these circumstances, Cole has failed to meet his burden and, thus,

has not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief under the relative-

hardship test.

                  "Change-in-the-Neighborhood" Test

     Next, Cole argues that he should be relieved from having to comply

with the Kirkwood Heights covenants based on the application of the

"change-in-the-neighborhood" test. Because the subdivision of Lot 14 in

2016 was made with the approval of a majority of the property owners in

the subdivision, including some of the present lot owners, and because,

Cole says, the apparent acquiescence to "numerous other violations of the

… Covenant provisions" by the other property owners in the subdivision

demonstrates that the neighborhood (i.e., the subdivision) has changed

so radically that the original purpose o f the Kirkwood Heights covenants,

which were first approved in 1957, can no longer be accomplished, Cole

contends that he is entitled to relief from the enforcement of the

Kirkwood Heights covenants.

     2Compare    Lange v. Scofield, 567 So. 2d 1299, 1302 (Ala. 1990)
(noting that "there was ample evidence that [the plaintiff's lot] would be
almost without value if the covenants are enforced" (emphasis added)).
                                   18
SC-2022-0723

     Under the change-in-the-neighborhood test, "a restrictive covenant

will not be enforced if the character of the neighborhood has changed so

radically that the original purpose of the covenant can no longer be

accomplished." AmSouth Bank, N.A. v. British W. Florida, L.L.C., 988

So. 2d 545, 550 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). This Court has recently stated:

     " ' "A change in character of the neighborhood sufficient to
     defeat a restrictive covenant must have been so great as to
     clearly neutralize the benefits of the restriction to the point of
     defeating the object and purpose of the covenant." ' Laney [v.
     Early], 292 Ala. [227,] 233, 292 So. 2d [103,] 108 [(1974)]
     (quoting Thompson on Real Property § 3174, p. 20 (1972
     Supp.)). Such a change in the nature and condition of the
     neighborhood 'must be determined based on a comparison of
     its present character with its character when the restrictive
     covenants were created ....' AmSouth Bank[, N.A. v. British
     W. Florida, L.L.C.], 988 So. 2d [545,] 551 [(Ala. Civ. App.
     2007)]. When the original purposes of the covenants can be
     effectuated, changes outside the restricted area should not be
     allowed to defeat the purposes of the restriction. Laney, 292
     Ala. at 233, 292 So. 2d at 108 (citing Centers, Inc. v. Gilliland,
     285 Ala. 593, 596, 234 So. 2d 883, 886 (1970)). The burden of
     proof is on the party seeking to remove the restrictive
     covenants pursuant to the 'change-in-the-neighborhood' test.
     Laney, supra."

Capitol Farmers Mkt., Inc. v. Ingram, [Ms. 1200688, Dec. 3, 2021] ____

So. 3d ____, ____ (Ala. 2021).

     To illustrate, in AmSouth Bank, supra, the Court of Civil Appeals

                                    19
SC-2022-0723

upheld a trial court's decision to abandon the restrictive covenants at

issue under the "change-in-the-neighborhood" test. After comparing the

neighborhood in its modern state to its state when the restrictive

covenants were first created, the trial court concluded that the

neighborhood had radically changed and, therefore, that a covenant

requiring only single-family homes could not be enforced. The evidence

indicated that the neighborhood originally consisted of a single bait shop

and single-family dwellings surrounded by vacant land. At the time of

the litigation, however, the neighborhood was dominated by high-rise

condominiums and hotels and had become a highly populated resort area

along the Gulf Coast. In upholding the trial court's decision not to enforce

the restrictive covenants, the Court of Civil Appeals noted that the

evidence clearly indicated that a "radical" change in the neighborhood

had occurred and that it was a fundamentally different place, used for

different purposes, with a fundamentally different density.

     In the present case, Cole alleges that the subdivision has radically

changed since it was originally established in 1957 such that the object

and purpose of the Kirkwood Heights covenants can no longer be met. In

support of his contention, Cole notes that the majority of the property

                                    20
SC-2022-0723

owners in the subdivision, including some of the lot owners, formally

waived the lot-size and width provisions in paragraph 2 of the Kirkwood

Heights covenants when they signed the 2016 waiver. He also points to

the fact that several lots in the subdivision have encroached upon various

required setbacks mandated by the Kirkwood Heights covenants.

Finally, he notes that a "commercial" lawnmower-repair business is

being run out of at least one house in the subdivision, which, he says, is

a direct violation of the Kirkwood Heights covenants.

     None of the alleged violations of the Kirkwood Heights covenants

claimed by Cole indicate that the subdivision has undergone such a

radical change since its inception that enforcing those covenants in this

case would be improper. The evidence indicates that there is only 1

subdivided lot among the 52 lots that are subject to the Kirkwood Heights

covenants. 3   The admissible evidence demonstrates only that the

     3The    lot owners claim that only 52 lots are subject to the Kirkwood
Heights covenants and that many of the "violations" Cole cites do not
involve lots covered by those covenants. In support of their contention,
they cite the plat that is attached as an exhibit to their complaint and
that is verified by an affidavit from the Probate Court, which states that
it is a "true, correct and complete" copy. (Emphasis added.) Cole disputes
this contention and produced a plat at the summary-judgment hearing
that purports to be from the county tax assessor's office and that indicates
that 148 lots are part of the subdivision. However, that plat was not
                                      21
SC-2022-0723

subdivision as a whole remains a residential neighborhood with single-

family homes. We cannot say that the change in the character of the

subdivision is " 'so great as to clearly neutralize the benefits of the

restriction to the point of defeating the object and purpose of the

covenant.' " Laney, 292 Ala. at 233, 292 So. 2d at 108 (quoting Thompson

on Real Property § 3174 (1972 Supp.)). Thus, Cole has failed to meet his

burden establishing that application of the change-in-the-neighborhood

test prevents the enforcement of Kirkwood Heights covenants in this

case.

                              Rule 56(f) Affidavit

        Cole contends that he is entitled to relief because, he says, the trial

court prematurely entered a summary judgment in this case without first

affording him an opportunity to conduct discovery. Relying on Rule 56(f),

Ala. R. Civ. P., Cole contends that the trial court had an obligation to

deny or withhold a ruling on the lot owners' motion for a summary

judgment until they responded to his prior discovery requests. 4

certified by an affidavit. Even more importantly, the tax assessor's map
does not (and cannot) speak to whether all the lots depicted in the tax
assessor's plat are subject to the same set of restrictive covenants.

        4We   note that Cole also contends that the lot owners violated Rule
                                       22
SC-2022-0723

     Rule 56(f) provides:

     "Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the
     motion that the party cannot, for reasons stated, present by
     affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the
     court may deny the motion for summary judgment or may
     order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or
     depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make
     such other order as is just."

Here, Cole filed such an affidavit from his trial counsel, Robert Presto.

     Although Presto's affidavit identified the discovery requests that

had previously been issued -- i.e., the requests for production and the

deposition notices -- it did not explain how the evidence sought by those

requests would be relevant. Instead, he merely parroted the language

from Rule 56(f): "[T]his affidavit confirms that I cannot at this time

present by affidavit or by discovery materials the facts that are necessary

to justify our opposition to the [lot owners'] Motion seeking summary

56(c)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., because, he says, they failed to include a
"narrative summary of what the movant contends to be the undisputed
material facts." This is not true. The lot owners included a fact section,
with citations to admissible evidence, in their summary-judgment
motion. Although this Court has never addressed how strictly to enforce
Rule 56(c)(1), the caselaw on which Cole relies in support of his
contention -- Tucker v. Morgan, 833 So. 2d 68, 72 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) --
involved an extreme failure by the movant and is, therefore,
unpersuasive.

                                    23
SC-2022-0723

judgment."

     The law is clear that the nonmoving party bears the burden to

demonstrate to the trial court that the evidence sought in opposition to a

summary-judgment motion is critical to its case. See Diamond v. Aronov,

621 So. 2d 263, 265 (Ala. 1993). " ' "[W]hen no such crucial evidence would

be supplied [by discovery] it is not error for the trial court to grant

summary judgment with discovery pending." ' " Id. at 266 (citations

omitted; emphasis added).

     In short, it is Cole's burden under Rule 56(f) to demonstrate that

the evidence sought by his discovery requests is "crucial" -- not merely

that he has issued discovery requests. Conclusory statements are not

enough.5

                            Waiver or Acquiescence

     5It is also clear that at least some (perhaps most) of the relevant
evidence as to the relative-hardship defense was within Cole's own
control. Cole could have provided evidence relating to the hardship
imposed upon him by enforcement of the Kirkwood Heights covenants,
expert or third-party testimony regarding the lack of substantial benefit
enforcing those covenants would provide to the lot owners, or affidavit
testimony addressing the alleged covenant violations in the subdivision.
For instance, Cole claims in his brief that he "easily recognized the
multiple Covenant violations." Cole's brief at 53. Nonetheless, he
presented no admissible evidence of such multiple "easily recognized"
violations.
                                    24
SC-2022-0723

     Cole also argues that there is a fact question as to whether the "Lot

Owners, and all of the other owners of lots within the Subdivision, had

effectively waived and abandoned the Covenants." Cole appears to make

two types of waiver arguments.

     First, Cole appears to argue that the 2016 waiver somehow waived

the lot-size and width requirements in paragraph 2 the Kirkwood

Heights covenants. To the extent that he is making such an argument,

the plain language of the 2016 waiver is exactly to the contrary. The

2016 waiver applies to one lot and states: "Lot 14 … may be subdivided

.… Except as herein changed, all other restrictions and/or covenants as

recorded … shall remain in full force and effect." (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, the 2016 waiver acknowledged and complied with the

process for formal amendment of the Kirkwood Heights covenants.

     Next, Cole argues that the existence of the 2016 waiver -- combined

with the alleged repeated violations of the setback requirements (and the

operation of the alleged lawnmower-repair business) -- evidences a

waiver and/or acquiescence of all the Kirkwood Heights covenants by all

the property owners in the subdivision. In short, he contends that nobody

cares anymore about the Kirkwood Heights covenants, as evidenced by

                                   25
SC-2022-0723

the pervasiveness of the violations.

     The first problem with this argument is that Cole cites no Alabama

cases that have recognized waiver or acquiescence as a defense to the

enforcement of restrictive covenants. Instead, he cites cases from other

jurisdictions -- Morris v. Nease, 160 W. Va. 774, 238 S.E.2d 844 (1977),

McColm v. Stegman, 3 Kan. App. 2d 416, 596 P.2d 167 (1979), and Alfaro

v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., 71 Cal.

App. 4th 1356, 1364, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271, 280 (2009). We note, however,

that these out-of-state cases apply waiver narrowly and could be read to

support the lot owners. For instance, the court in Alfaro refused to find

waiver, holding that "[a] nebulous allegation that 'several' of [the

defendant lot owners are in violation] is clearly insufficient to establish

that [they] have generally waived their right to enforce the restrictive

covenant." 171 Cal. App. 4th at 1380, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 293. Likewise,

in McColm, the Kansas Court of Appeals refused to find waiver, and in

Morris, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia rejected a number

of waiver arguments because the violations allegedly supporting waiver

were "not so similar in character." Morris, 160 W. Va. at 780, 238 S.E.2d

at 848. Thus, they do not support Cole's argument here.

                                    26
SC-2022-0723

     There is also Alabama precedent that could be interpreted to the

contrary of these out-of-state cases. For instance, this Court stated in

Tubbs v. Brandon, 374 So. 2d 1358, 1360 (Ala. 1979), that we would follow

"the general rule that restrictive covenants in a deed will be enforced

even though other owners of lots in the subdivision have violated the

restrictions without objection." (Emphasis added.) Moreover, in general,

Alabama recognizes the need for certainty when dealing with real

property; it is generally an important public policy that recorded real-

property documents accurately provide at least inquiry notice to the

public of the legal status of real property. Thus, we would hesitate before

recognizing any blanket doctrine that might weaken such certainty.

     However, we need not decide today whether some set of compelling

facts might merit a limited application of waiver or acquiescence in the

restrictive-covenant context, because the evidence does not support

Cole's waiver arguments here. The 2016 waiver actually proves the

opposite of generalized acquiescence. The owner of Lot 14 followed the

procedures set forth in the Kirkwood Heights covenants to obtain the

2016 waiver, and the property owners who consented to the 2016 waiver

followed the procedures prescribed by those covenants. The actions of all

                                    27
SC-2022-0723

of those persons showed compliance with the Kirkwood Heights

covenants -- not a blanket acquiescence in violation of those covenants.

Regarding the other alleged violations, Cole has provided no admissible

evidence. Further, those other alleged violations concern provisions of

the Kirkwood Heights covenants other than the provisions regarding

width and lot size (that is, they do not involve the " 'same type of

restriction' "). Morris, 160 W.Va. at 780, 238 S.E.2d at 848 (quoting 2

American Law of Property 441-42 (A.I.Casner ed., 1952)). Thus, under

these circumstances, Cole has failed to show that he is entitled to relief.

            Rule 19 -- Are The Owners of Other Lots Necessary or
                         Indispensable Parties?

     Next, Cole argues that the trial court erred when it refused to

require the lot owners to join all of the other property owners in the

subdivision as necessary or indispensable parties. According to Cole, this

would presumably add at least 140 more parties to this action.

     Rule 19(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides:

     "A person who is subject to jurisdiction of the court shall be
     joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's absence
     complete relief cannot be accorded among those already
     parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the
     subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of
     the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter
     impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest

                                    28
SC-2022-0723

     or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a
     substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise
     inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. If
     the person has not been so joined, the court shall order that
     the person be made a party. If the person should join as a
     plaintiff but refuses to do so, the person may be made a
     defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. If the
     joined party objects to venue and joinder of that party would
     render the venue of the action improper, that party shall be
     dismissed from the action."

This Court has previously explained the following with regard to the

difference between "necessary parties" and "indispensable parties":

           " ' " Indispensable parties" are persons who not only have
     an interest in the controversy but an interest of such a nature
     that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting
     that interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition
     that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with
     equity and good conscience. Bennie v. Pastor, C.A.N.M. 1968,
     393 F.2d 1 [10th Cir. 1968].

           " ' " ....

          " ' " Necessary parties" are those affected by the
     judgment and against which in fact it will operate. West Coast
     Exploration Co. v. McKay, 1954, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 307, 213
     F.2d 582, certiorari denied, 347 U.S. 989, 74 S.Ct. 850, 98
     L.Ed. 1123.' "

Frander & Frander, Inc. v. Griffen, 457 So. 2d 375, 377 (Ala. 1984)

(quoting 1 Champ Lyons, Alabama Practice, Rules of Civil Procedure 389

(1973)). "There is no prescribed formula to be mechanically applied in

every case to determine whether a party is an indispensable party or
                                    29
SC-2022-0723

merely a proper or necessary one. This is a question to be decided in the

context of the particular case." J.R. McClenney & Son, Inc. v. Reimer, 435

So. 2d 50, 52 (Ala. 1983).

     In Capitol Farmers Market, Inc. v. Delongchamp, 320 So. 3d 574,

579 (Ala. 2020), this Court recently stated the following regarding the

process provided in Rule 19:

           " 'Rule 19, [Ala.] R. Civ. P., provides a two-step process
     for the trial court to follow in determining whether a party is
     necessary or indispensable. Ross v. Luton, 456 So. 2d 249, 256
     (Ala. 1984), citing Note, Rule 19 in Alabama, 33 Ala. L. Rev.
     439, 446 (1982). First, the court must determine whether the
     absentee is one who should be joined if feasible under
     subdivision (a). If the court determines that the absentee
     should be joined but cannot be made a party, the provisions of
     [subdivision] (b) are used to determine whether an action can
     proceed in the absence of such a person. Loving v. Wilson, 494
     So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1986); Ross v. Luton, 456 So. 2d 249 (Ala.
     1984). It is the plaintiff's duty under this rule to join as a party
     anyone required to be joined. J.C. Jacobs Banking Co. v.
     Campbell, 406 So. 2d 834 (Ala. 1981).' "

(Quoting Holland v. City of Alabaster, 566 So. 2d 224, 226 (Ala. 1990).)

"The purposes of Rule 19 'include the promotion of judicial efficiency and

the final determination of litigation by including all parties directly

interested in the controversy.' " City of Gadsden v. Boman, 104 So. 3d 882,

887 (Ala. 2012) (quoting Byrd Cos. v. Smith, 591 So. 2d 844, 846 (Ala.

1991)). "This Court will not disturb a trial court's Rule 19[, Ala. R. Civ.
                                     30
SC-2022-0723

P.,] determination unless it exceeded its discretion, because such a

determination is based on equitable and pragmatic considerations."

Toomey v. Riverside RV Resort, LLC, 328 So. 3d 228, 232 (Ala. 2020)

      Here, the sole claim in the complaint is for a permanent injunction

to enforce the plain language of the Kirkwood Heights covenants against

Cole. The trial court's entry of a summary judgment had no effect on

other property owners' legal or equitable interests in their real property

that is subject to the Kirkwood Heights covenants. All the issues before

the trial court center on whether Cole's lot is subject to those covenants

and, if so, whether Cole's proposed subdivision of his lot violates those

covenants, thereby warranting the issuance of an injunction. The

permanent injunction issued by the trial court in this case is narrowly

tailored to Cole's lot.

      Cole contends, however, that he may be faced with the risk of

another injunction because all the property owners in the subdivision

were not joined in the litigation under Rule 19. He also argues that if he

were to defeat the lot owners' claims based upon his affirmative defenses,

the interests of the other property owners in the subdivision would be

affected. In support of his contention, Cole relies on this Court's prior

                                   31
SC-2022-0723

decisions in Withington v. Cloud, 522 So. 2d 263 (Ala. 1988), and

Delongchamp, supra.

     First and foremost, as explained previously in this opinion, the

Kirkwood Heights covenants clearly provide the parameters for lot size

and width in the subdivision, and it is undisputed that the parameters of

Cole's proposed subdivisions of his lot violate those provisions. Because

the proposed subdivision of his lot would breach the Kirkwood Heights

covenants and because he failed to establish that those covenants were

unenforceable, neither of his arguments as to impact on other property

owners in the subdivision can come to pass. The Kirkwood Heights

covenants will remain in effect for everyone in the subdivision and the

injunction will bar only him from violating those covenants.

     Further, the present case is distinguishable from Withington,

supra, and Delongchamp, supra. Here, the lot owners sought only an

injunction against one property owner, and their injunction sought only

to enforce the original, plain meaning of the Kirkwood Heights covenants.

In both Withington and Delongchamp, the plaintiff was seeking to

change the application of the pertinent restrictive covenants. For

instance, in Withington, the plaintiffs were "seeking a judgment

                                   32
SC-2022-0723

declaring that they should be allowed to subdivide their lot" despite the

existence of a covenant prohibiting subdivision, and the defendant

countered by claiming (successfully) that "the other owners of property

[in the subdivision] are indispensable parties." 522 So. 2d at 263. Thus,

in Withington, a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs would have impacted

other property owners subject to those covenants. Here, the lot owners

were not seeking to change anything.

     The interpretation of Rule 19 that Cole is requesting would make

the enforcement of restrictive covenants in subdivisions, like the ones at

issue here, virtually impossible and prohibitively expensive. Such a rule

would effectively strip property owners of the benefits of the covenants

that were part of the bargain when they purchased their property.

     Moreover, Cole could have sought a judgment declaring, for

example, that there had been a waiver of the Kirkwood Heights

covenants or a change in character of the neighborhood. If Cole had

pleaded such a declaratory-judgment claim, he could have added the

remaining property owners in the subdivision as additional parties to his

counterclaim under Rule 13(h), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("Persons other than those

made parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim

                                   33
SC-2022-0723

or cross-claim in accordance with the provisions of Rule 19 and 20[, Ala.

R. Civ. P.]." (emphasis added)). Under these circumstances, Cole has

failed to establish that the trial court erred in denying his request to

order the lot owners to add additional parties.

                               Other Claims

     Finally, Cole argues that the trial court erred in entering a

summary judgment in favor of the lot owners on his tortious- interference

and civil-conspiracy claims.

     To succeed on his tortious-interference claim, Cole was required to

show (1) a protectable business interest; (2) of which the lot owners were

aware; (3) to which the lot owners were strangers; (4) with which the lot

owners interfered; and (5) thereby damaged Cole. Alabama Psychiatric

Servs., P.C. v. A Ctr. for Eating Disorders, L.L.C., 148 So. 3d 708, 714

(Ala. 2014). Here, Cole has failed to demonstrate that he had a

protectable business interest with Augustus Homes. As established

previously in this opinion, Cole's attempt to subdivide his lot to build two

residential homes constituted a breach of the Kirkwood Heights

covenants. In other words, Cole did not have a "protectable" interest in

subdividing the lot, and the lot owners were justified in bringing their

                                    34
SC-2022-0723

complaint. See generally Gross v. Lowder Realty Better Homes &

Gardens, 494 So. 2d 590 (Ala. 1986).

     With regard to Cole's civil-conspiracy claim, it is settled law in

Alabama that a civil-conspiracy claim cannot stand alone; a civil-

conspiracy claim " 'must have a viable underlying cause of action.' "

Alabama Psychiatric Servs., 148 So. 3d at 715 (quoting Drill Parts &

Serv. Co. v. Joy Mfg. Co., 619 So. 2d 1280, 1290 (Ala. 1993)). Because Cole

asserts no other viable claims in this action, the trial court properly

entered a summary judgment in favor of the lot owners on Cole's civil-

conspiracy claim.

                               Conclusion

     For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the trial court's judgment

is affirmed.

     AFFIRMED.

     Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ.,

concur.

     Shaw and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result.

                                    35