Which of the following is NOT a defense against the enforcement of a restrictive covenant?

The concept of a restrictive covenant involves limitations placed on the use of property, often to maintain a certain atmosphere or character within a community or development. Defenses against enforcement of such covenants typically include principles that pertain to equity and how the parties have behaved or changed over time.

A significant reason why change of owner is not a recognized defense against enforcement lies in the nature of restrictive covenants themselves. These covenants often run with the land, meaning they are binding on all future owners of the property. The intent behind a restrictive covenant is to maintain certain standards or conditions irrespective of who owns the property at any given time. Therefore, when a new owner takes possession of the property, they are still required to adhere to any existing restrictive covenants that apply, rendering ownership change irrelevant to the enforcement of the covenant.

In contrast, defenses such as unclean hands, acquiescence, and laches are based on principles of equity and can suggest that a party seeking enforcement may not be entitled to it due to their previous behavior, the actions of the other party, or a delay in asserting their rights. These principles focus on equitable considerations that might preclude enforcement, whereas merely changing ownership does not affect the validity or enforceability of the covenant itself.