What type of discretion makes a restrictive covenant unenforceable?

A restrictive covenant may become unenforceable when it is based on arbitrary discretion without any established standards. This occurs because such discretion can lead to inconsistent and unpredictable enforcement, creating an environment where property owners cannot reasonably rely on the terms of the covenant.

Restrictive covenants are meant to promote a consistent and harmonious use of properties within a community, often serving aesthetic or functional purposes. When the enforcement of these covenants is entirely left to arbitrary decision-making, it undermines their purpose, making it difficult for property owners to understand what is permissible, and can lead to accusations of discrimination or unfair treatment.

The other options involve either standards or community input which provide a basis for enforcement. For instance, standardized discretion based on aesthetics and community-based discretion validated by a committee can help ensure that actions taken regarding enforcement are grounded in predefined criteria or collective consensus, promoting fairness and transparency. Fixed discretion approved by all members further reinforces adherence to the original intent of the covenant by requiring broader consensus for decisions.