What must be demonstrated for equity to refuse the enforcement of a covenant due to changed circumstances?

In order for equity to refuse the enforcement of a covenant due to changed circumstances, it is essential that the changes are clear and substantial. This principle stems from the idea that covenants are intended to serve specific purposes, often tied to the characteristics and values of the surrounding community at the time they were established. As circumstances evolve—for example, demographic shifts, changes in land use, or significant community developments—the original rationale for the covenant may no longer hold.

When a substantial and clear change is demonstrated, it indicates that adherence to the covenant may no longer serve its original intent or could cause an undue burden that outweighs its benefits. This allows the court to balance the historical intent and purpose of the covenant against the realities of the current situation, leading to a more equitable outcome. Thus, demonstrating that the changes are both clear and substantial plays a crucial role in guiding the court's decision to potentially refuse enforcement.

Other options do not accurately reflect the necessary criteria for equity to intervene. The original purpose remaining intact or community agreement may not be sufficiently compelling in light of overwhelming evidence of change. Additionally, if changes were limited only to the property level, it would not typically constitute the widespread alterations necessary to warrant equity's refusal of enforcement. Hence, the focus on