720 S.W.2d 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986)
In July 1981, defendants Joan Horn and E. Terrence Jones purchased a seven-bedroom, four-bathroom house located in a single-family residential zone in the City of Ladue.1 Residing in the home were Horn's two children aged 16 and 19 and Jones's one child aged 18.2 The two older children attended out-of-state universities and lived in the house only on a part-time basis.3 Although defendants were not married, they shared a common bedroom, maintained a joint checking account for the household expenses, ate their meals together, entertained together, and disciplined each other's children.4
Ladue's Zoning Ordinance No. 1175 was in effect at all times pertinent to the action.5 The ordinance designated zones as one-family residential and defined family as one or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption occupying a dwelling unit as an individual housekeeping organization.6 The only authorized accessory use in residential districts was for accommodations for domestic persons employed and living on the premises and home occupations.7
Ladue made demands upon defendants to vacate their home because their household did not comprise a family as defined by the zoning ordinance.8 When defendants refused to vacate, Ladue sought to enjoin defendants' continued violation of the zoning ordinance.9 Defendants counterclaimed seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinance was constitutionally void along with attorneys' fees and costs.10
The case was submitted to the trial court on stipulated facts, including the deposition of Joan Horn.11 The trial court entered a permanent injunction in favor of Ladue and dismissed defendants' counterclaim.12 Enforcement of the injunction was stayed pending appeal.13 Defendants appealed from the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals.14
Whether defendants' household constitutes a family under Ladue's zoning ordinance definition?15
Ladue's Zoning Ordinance No. 1175 defines family as one or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption occupying a dwelling unit as an individual housekeeping organization.16 The ordinance restricts one-family residential zones to such families.17 The court assumes arguendo that the judgment rested solely on the absence of a blood, marriage or adoption relationship among the adult occupants.18
No. The established facts demonstrate that Horn and Jones were not married and shared no blood or adoption relationship with each other.19 Although they shared a bedroom, maintained joint finances, ate meals together, entertained together, and disciplined each other's children, these functional arrangements do not satisfy the ordinance's explicit relational requirement.20 The two older children lived in the house only part-time while attending out-of-state universities, further confirming that the household lacked the required legal or biological ties among all members.21
Defendants' household does not constitute a family under Ladue's zoning ordinance because the adult occupants are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption.22
Whether Ladue's zoning ordinance violates defendants' right to associate freely with whomever they wish?23
Freedom of association claims in zoning challenges receive rational-basis review when the ordinance regulates economic and social legislation rather than a fundamental right.24 An ordinance survives if it is reasonably related to a permissible governmental objective such as preserving traditional family patterns and values.25
No. The established facts show that defendants purchased and occupied a house in a single-family zone while maintaining an unmarried household.26 Ladue's ordinance advances the legitimate goal of maintaining traditional family environments by limiting occupancy to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption.27 Under the rational-basis standard, the ordinance need not employ the least restrictive means, and the legislative choice to draw this line is not arbitrary.28
Ladue's zoning ordinance does not violate defendants' right to associate freely with whomever they wish.29
Whether the zoning restrictions violate defendants' right to privacy?30
No. The established facts establish that defendants lived together without marriage in a house purchased in a single-family zone.33 The ordinance regulates land use to protect family values and community character without slicing into the nuclear family itself.34 Because the restriction addresses economic and social concerns rather than fundamental privacy interests, rational-basis review applies and the ordinance satisfies that standard.35
The zoning restrictions do not violate defendants' right to privacy.36
Whether the zoning classification impermissibly distinguishes between related and unrelated persons?37
No. The established facts confirm that defendants formed an unmarried household with children from prior relationships.40 The ordinance's distinction between related and unrelated persons rationally advances the governmental interest in preserving traditional family stability and values.41 The line drawn by Ladue is a legislative judgment that courts will not disturb under rational-basis scrutiny.42
The zoning classification does not impermissibly distinguish between related and unrelated persons.43
Whether Ladue's zoning ordinance violates rights protected by the Missouri Constitution?44
Missouri courts defer to a municipality's legislative definition of family in its zoning ordinance when the definition aligns with traditional biological or legal relationships and no overriding governmental interest or statutory authority negates that prerogative.45
No. The established facts show that defendants' household did not meet Ladue's definition of family because the adults were unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption.46 Missouri precedent upholds zoning ordinances that define family according to biological or legal ties, and the Ladue ordinance comports with that tradition.47 The trial court's injunction enforcing the ordinance therefore violates no Missouri constitutional right.48
Ladue's zoning ordinance does not violate rights protected by the Missouri Constitution.49