Could a South Carolina subdivision covenant restrict where a homeowner put a satellite dish?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether subdivision covenants could prevent placement of a satellite dish. The AG said a restriction could be enforceable in particular circumstances. It did not review any specific subdivision covenant and therefore did not decide whether a particular homeowner's dish was restricted.

The opinion relied on South Carolina's general approach to restrictive covenants: courts read ambiguous restrictions strictly in favor of free land use, while enforcing clear restrictions that express the parties' intent and do not violate public policy.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a subdivision prohibit or limit a satellite dish under this AG opinion?
A: The AG said a covenant limiting placement could be upheld, depending on its wording and circumstances. It did not say every satellite-dish covenant was enforceable.

Q: What if the covenant was unclear?
A: The opinion quoted a state court rule that ambiguities in a restrictive covenant were resolved in favor of free use of land.

Q: Did the AG decide whether a particular neighborhood's covenant applied?
A: No. It explicitly said it had not reviewed any particular subdivision restrictions.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion treated restrictive covenants as voluntary property agreements and quoted Sea Pines Plantation Company v. Wells on strict construction, clear intent, and public policy. Its conclusion was limited to the possibility that a satellite-dish placement covenant could be upheld under that doctrine.

Citations

• Sea Pines Plantation Company v. Wells

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-10-2004-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04fmarch10pinson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

March 10, 2004

I
I

The Honorable Lewis E. Pinson
Member, House of Representatives
327-D Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative Pinson:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether local subdivision covenants can override placement of a satellite. I assume you are questioning whether such covenants can prevent the placement of a satellite dish in a particular subdivision.

I

As referenced in a prior opinion of this office dated January 2, 1975, restrictive covenants are generally upheld as enforceable under the theory of protection of property values and maintenance of the character of a subdivision. The opinion commented that generally restrictive covenants are filed and disclosed prior to the purchase of the property. Therefore, a homeowner would be deemed to have been put on notice of the restrictions prior to purchase of the property. As stated in Sea Pines Plantation Company v. Wells, 294 S.C. 266, 270, 363 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1987) Courts tend to strictly interpret restrictive covenants and resolve any doubt or ambiguities in a covenant on the presumption of free and unrestricted land use ... Thus, to enforce a restrictive covenant, a party must show that the restriction applies to the property either by the covenant's express language or by a plain and unmistakable implication ... (However) ... (t)he rule of strict construction governing restrictive covenants does not preclude their enforcement. A restrictive covenant will be enforced if the covenant expresses the party's intent or purpose, and this rule will not be used to defeat the clear express language of the covenant... This restrictive covenant is a voluntary contract between the parties. Courts shall enforce such covenants unless they are indefinite or contravene public policy.

~ '\
REMl\WT c.~ BUil.DING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970
~l~U~J

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Lewis E. Pinson
Page2
March 10, 2004
Consistent with such, and acknowledging that this office has not reviewed any particular subdivision restrictions, a subdivision covenant restricting the placement of satellite dishes in a particular subdivision could be upheld in particular circumstances. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours,

I
I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General