2/9/2024 0 Comments Hoa covenant![]() Unambiguous restrictive covenants “must be enforced as written.” Johnson Family Ltd Partnership v White Pines Wireless, LLC, 281 Mich App 364, 389 761 NW2d 353 (2008). The Court began its analysis of the issue by discussing how restrictive covenants are interpreted and enforced: The HOA appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that the term “auxiliary construction” was not ambiguous and that the shed was not an auxiliary construction permitted under the restrictive covenant. Interpreting Ambiguity in Restrictive Covenants The trial court agreed with Pawlanta’s argument and dismissed the lawsuit. Pawlanta defended the lawsuit by arguing that the term “auxiliary construction” was ambiguous and unenforceable. Pawlanta refused and the HOA filed a lawsuit requesting that the court require her to remove the shed because all outbuildings were prohibited in the subdivision according to the HOA’s restrictive covenants. The HOA sent her two letters demanding that she remove the shed because the restrictive covenants prohibited structures other than single-family residences. Pawlanta built a shed on her lot so that she could store her snow blower and other winter items during the off-season. ![]() No building or other structure shall be erected or altered or permitted on any site in the Plat of Crest Wood Manor #2 and Crest Wood Manor #3 other than one single family dwelling house with attached garage except swimming pool, tennis court, badminton court, walls or fences and such other auxiliary construction. Kathleen Pawlanta owned a lot in the Crest Wood Manor subdivision #2, which was subject to a number of restrictions, including the following: ![]() The dissenting opinion in this case also highlights that not every judge or court will reach the same conclusion on how to interpret an ambiguous term or provision within the restrictive covenants. 359070), is an example of the tools that courts may use when interpreting ambiguous restrictions. The following case, Crestwood Homeowners Association, Inc v Pawlanta, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued Septem(Docket No. And in 2006, in a dispute that was not as exciting as the headline, a court in Massachusetts held that burritos, tacos, and quesadillas are not sandwiches.īut an ambiguity in an HOA’s declaration or a condominium association’s master deed and bylaws can have real-world consequences for both an owner and the HOA or condominium association. For example, the late-night television host Stephen Colbert has asked two Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States whether hotdogs are sandwiches: both Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayorruled in the affirmative. ![]() An ambiguity in an item’s classification can sometimes lead to humorous discussions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |