Which of the following is NOT a way of terminating a restrictive covenant?

The correct answer highlights that a suit for partition filed by a majority of property owners in a subdivision does not serve as a means of terminating a restrictive covenant.

A restrictive covenant is a provision in a deed that restricts the use or development of the property in some way, often to maintain a certain standard within a neighborhood or community. The ways to terminate such a covenant generally revolve around mutual consent, time limits, or changes in circumstances.

Mutual agreement among property owners represents a straightforward method for ending a restrictive covenant since all parties involved can decide to amend or eliminate the restrictions collectively. Additionally, the expiration of the time period specified in the covenant naturally leads to its termination, as it is no longer enforceable once the agreed-upon time has lapsed. Changes in zoning laws can also impact the viability of a restrictive covenant if the law now allows uses that were previously restricted, as these changes can render the covenant obsolete or unenforceable.

The option regarding a suit for partition, however, typically refers to a legal action where co-owners seek to divide property among themselves, and it does not directly address the termination of a covenant. In fact, partition actions primarily deal with ownership rights rather than the specific limitations imposed by a covenant, which is