Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Peckham v. Milroy

Court of Appeals of Washington
17 P.3d 1256 (2001)


Facts

A restrictive covenant in the neighborhood of Spokane Terrace Addition (STA) prohibited the operation of home businesses. The STA covered 41 blocks, and each block contained 38 to 40 lots. At least four home businesses operated in violation of the covenant. Thomas Milroy’s (defendant) mother owned a home in the STA. Milroy and his family moved into the home in 1994 and began to remodel the home in August 1995. Gordon Peckham (plaintiff) also owned property in the STA. Peckham complained to the county about the Milroys’ reconstruction. The reconstruction was completed in December 1995, and Mrs. Milroy began to operate a daycare business from the Milroy home. Peckham was unhappy with the noise made by the children attending the daycare and the children’s parents’ practice of parking near his home and walking across his yard. In July 1996, Milroy inherited the home from his mother, and Peckham informed Mrs. Milroy that she was violating the covenant prohibiting home businesses. In November 1997, Peckham sued to enjoin the daycare’s operation. The trial court found that Peckham had an equitable right to enforce the covenant and granted the injunction. On appeal, Milroy claimed that: (1) the covenant had been abandoned due to violations by other home businesses, (2) the defenses of laches and estoppel applied to Peckham, and (3) the covenant violated public policy by restricting home daycare.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Sweeney, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.