relative hardship test in Alabama

2025See, 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 rather than holding that such knowledge precludes the application of the test.').

2025See, 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 rather than holding that such knowledge precludes the application of the test.').

2026Our supreme court in Cole v. Davis, 383 So. 3d 646 , 653-54 (Ala. 2023), summarized the relative-hardship test as follows: "Although, as noted earlier, the breach of a restrictive covenant is, by itself, enough to warrant the issuance of an injunction, in Lange [v. Scofield, 567 So. 2d 1299 (Ala. 1990),] 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.

2026Our supreme court in Cole v. Davis, 383 So. 3d 646 , 653-54 (Ala. 2023), summarized the relative-hardship test as follows: "Although, as noted earlier, the breach of a restrictive covenant is, by itself, enough to warrant the issuance of an injunction, in Lange [v. Scofield, 567 So. 2d 1299 (Ala. 1990),] 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.

2025In J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999), we explained the following regarding the clean-hands doctrine: "This Court has recognized that one 'who seek[s] equity must do equity' and 'one that comes into equity must come 35 SC-2024-0414; SC-2024-0437 with clean hands.' Levine v. Levine, 262 Ala. 491, 494 , 80 So. 2d 235, 237 (1955).

2025In J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999), we explained the following regarding the clean-hands doctrine: "This Court has recognized that one 'who seek[s] equity must do equity' and 'one that comes into equity must come 35 SC-2024-0414; SC-2024-0437 with clean hands.' Levine v. Levine, 262 Ala. 491, 494 , 80 So. 2d 235, 237 (1955).

2025In J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999), we explained the following regarding the clean-hands doctrine: "This Court has recognized that one 'who seek[s] equity must do equity' and 'one that comes into equity must come 35 SC-2024-0414; SC-2024-0437 with clean hands.' Levine v. Levine, 262 Ala. 491, 494 , 80 So. 2d 235, 237 (1955).

2025In J & M Bail Bonding Co. v. Hayes, 748 So. 2d 198, 199 (Ala. 1999), we explained the following regarding the clean-hands doctrine: "This Court has recognized that one 'who seek[s] equity must do equity' and 'one that comes into equity must come 35 SC-2024-0414; SC-2024-0437 with clean hands.' Levine v. Levine, 262 Ala. 491, 494 , 80 So. 2d 235, 237 (1955).

2017Miller v. Associated Gulf Land Corp., 941 So.2d 982, 989 (Ala. Civ.

2016Miller v. Associated Gulf Land Corp., 941 So.2d 982, 989 (Ala. Civ.

2025See Merchants Bank, 161 So. 3d at 1154 .

2025See Merchants Bank, 161 So. 3d at 1154 .

2023The 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).

2018As this court explained in Maxwell , the relative-hardship test rests entirely on equitable principles. 66 So.3d at 261 -62 .

2025Instead, the question is whether the defendants' actions "r[o]se to the level of morally reprehensible, willful misconduct." Retail Devs., 985 So. 2d at 932 .

2025Instead, the question is whether the defendants' actions "r[o]se to the level of morally reprehensible, willful misconduct." Retail Devs., 985 So. 2d at 932 .

2025See Cole, 383 So. 3d at 654 ("[T]he relative- hardship defense is an affirmative one, and, thus, the burden is on the party asserting the defense."); and Sims v. Lewis, 374 So. 2d 298, 301 (Ala. 1979)(explaining that the doctrine of laches is an affirmative defense).

2025See Newman, 239 So. 3d at 1150 .

2025In so doing, we remain mindful of the following standard of review: " 'The ore tenus standard of review generally applies to judgments entered following a bench trial.' R & G, LLC v. RCH IV-WB, LLC, 122 So. 3d 1253, 1256 (Ala. 2013). " ' Under the ore tenus standard of review, findings on disputed facts are presumed correct, and the trial court's judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.

2023The 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).

2023The 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).

2016Cf. Hankins v. Crane, 979 So.2d 801, 812 (Ala. Civ.

2011See Harksen v. Peska, 581 N.W.2d 170, 176 (S.D.1998) (stating that whether a party “knew that he was violating the covenant” was one factor to consider in applying the relative-hardship test and concluding that it would be inequitable to require a property owner who built a cabin in violation of restrictive covenants to remove the cabin although he knew he was violating the covenants).

2011See Harksen v. Peska, 581 N.W.2d 170, 176 (S.D.1998) (stating that whether a party “knew that he was violating the covenant” was one factor to consider in applying the relative-hardship test and concluding that it would be inequitable to require a property owner who built a cabin in violation of restrictive covenants to remove the cabin although he knew he was violating the covenants).

2011The clean-hands doctrine “ ‘finds expression in specific acts of willful misconduct’ ” that are “ ‘morally reprehensible as to known facts.’ ” Retail Developers of Alabama, LLC v. East Gadsden Golf Club, Inc., 985 So.2d 924, 932 (Ala.2007) (quoting Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Pack, 291 Ala. 727, 746 , 287 So.2d 847, 864 (1973)).

2011The clean-hands doctrine “ ‘finds expression in specific acts of willful misconduct’ ” that are “ ‘morally reprehensible as to known facts.’ ” Retail Developers of Alabama, LLC v. East Gadsden Golf Club, Inc., 985 So.2d 924, 932 (Ala.2007) (quoting Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Pack, 291 Ala. 727, 746 , 287 So.2d 847, 864 (1973)).

2011In concluding that the relative-hardship test should be applied in favor of the Rices, the trial court implicitly rejected the Association’s unclean-hands argument. “ ‘[Wjhere a trial court does not make specific findings of fact concerning an issue, [an appellate court] will assume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings are clearly erroneous.’” Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Woodland Grove Cmty. Cemetery Ass’n, 947 So.2d 1031, 1039 (Ala.2006) (quoting Sundance Marina, Inc. v. Reach, 567 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1990)).

2011In concluding that the relative-hardship test should be applied in favor of the Rices, the trial court implicitly rejected the Association’s unclean-hands argument. “ ‘[Wjhere a trial court does not make specific findings of fact concerning an issue, [an appellate court] will assume that the trial court made those findings necessary to support its judgment, unless such findings are clearly erroneous.’” Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Woodland Grove Cmty. Cemetery Ass’n, 947 So.2d 1031, 1039 (Ala.2006) (quoting Sundance Marina, Inc. v. Reach, 567 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1990)).