Mains Farm is a platted subdivision. A declaration of restrictive covenants for the subdivision was recorded in 1962. Worthington purchased a residential lot in Mains Farm in 1987. At that time a house already existed on the property. Before purchasing, Worthington obtained and read a copy of the restrictive covenants, which stated, in pertinent part, that all lots in Mains Farm “shall be designated as ‘Residential Lots’ and shall be used for single family residential purposes only.” Worthington later began occupying the residence with four adults who paid her for 24-hour protective supervision and care. 

The four adults, who were not related to Worthington, were unable to do their own housekeeping, prepare their own meals, or attend to their personal hygiene. In providing this supervision and care on a for-profit basis, Worthington complied with the licensing and inspection requirements established by Washington law governing such enterprises. When her intended use of the property became known, other property owners objected. Despite that knowledge, she applied for a building permit to add a fifth bedroom to the house. She was advised that her intended facility did not comply with applicable zoning. 

Worthington later obtained the permit by stating that only her family would be living with her. In her words: “I told them what they wanted to hear.” The Mains Farm Homeowners Association (Association), which consisted of owners of property in the subdivision, filed suit against Worthington and asked the court to enjoin her from using her property as an adult care business. The Association asserted that Worthington’s use violated the restrictive covenants. Should Worthington’s use of her property as an adult care business be enjoined as a violation of restrictive covenant?