Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): restrictive covenants in Borowski v Welch, 117 Mich App 712, 716-717; 324 NW2d 144 (1982): When interpreting a restrictive covenant, courts must give effect to the instrument as a whole where the intent of the parties is clearly ascertainable. Where the intent is clear from the whole document, there is no ambiguous restriction to interpret and the rules pertaining to the resolution of doubts in favor of the free use of property are therefore not applicable. In placing the proper construction on restrictions, if there can be said to be any doubt about their exact meaning, the courts must have in mind the subdivider’s intention and purpose. The restrictions must be construed in light of the general plan under which the restrict e City of Enid v Rogers, 874 P2d 818 (Okla App, 1994) (<HOLDING>); Mauldin v Panella, 17 P3d 837 (Colo App, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an amendment of restrictive covenants passed during the running of an automatic 10year extension period was not effective until the end of the 10year extension period (B) holding that a district court may not construe an untimely notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time (C) holding that amendments of the restrictive covenants passed during the initial 20year term would not take effect until the beginning of the automatic 10year extension period (D) holding that the bankruptcy court could not extend a deadline for filing a notice of appeal beyond the 20 day extension period allowed by the bankruptcy rules (E) holding that an amendment passed two years into a 10year automatic extension period was not effective until the 10year extension period expired and stating that to hold otherwise would render the extension provision meaningless
Output (English): holding that a district court may not construe an untimely notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time