Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization

Protective Covenants Permit Pasturing of a Horse

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In Turner v. Caplan, 596 S.E.2d 525 (Va. 2004), residential landowners sought injunctive relief to prevent an adjoining landowner from pasturing his horse in their subdivision. The plaintiffs argued that the protective covenants required that the subdivision lots be used "exclusively for residential purposes." Id. at 527. The Supreme Court of Virginia, however, ruled that the defendant was not prohibited from pasturing a horse on his property after construing the covenants "as a whole." Id. The court found that the defendant's lots, upon which he pastured a horse, had been specifically exempted from the covenants' prohibition on the raising of livestock. See id. The court further found that the inclusion of this exemption in the protective covenants was not unreasonable, stating that the plaintiffs had "considered the restriction and its exemptions reasonable or they would not have purchased their lots." Id. at 528.

The case was decided on June 10, 2004; this summary was posted June 10, 2005.