The subdivision at issue was subject to a restrictive covenant limiting its use to residential purposes. The subdivision contained 49 lots, several of which had been sold to churches. The lot owned by Colligan (D) was on the edge of the subdivision, fronting a road which, over the years, had become heavily traveled. Property adjacent to D's lot, not part of the subdivision, was being used for commercial purposes. The value of D's lot would triple if the restriction limiting it to residential use were removed. A group of other lot owners in the subdivision (P) sued for a declaratory judgment that the residential restriction was still valid and enforceable with respect to D's lot. The trial court found that the restrictions were valid and enforceable, had not been waived, breached or abandoned, but that it was no longer just and equitable to enforce the covenants with respect to D's tract to prevent its use for business and commercial purposes. P appeals.