Opinion ID: 2356025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Language of the Restrictive Covenant

Text: [¶ 10] Because the property is subject to the restrictive covenant we must interpret the covenant's language. Construction of a deed, including a restrictive covenant, is a question of law that we review de novo. The language must be given its ordinary meaning, and if there is no ambiguity the plain meaning controls. If the language is ambiguous, then extrinsic evidence may be consulted to ascertain the grantor's intent. Language is deemed ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible of different interpretations. River Dale Ass'n v. Bloss, 2006 ME 86, ¶ 6, 901 A.2d 809, 811 (quotations marks and citations omitted). [3] [¶ 11] The restrictive covenant states: Grantees, by acceptance of this deed, agree that these premises shall be divided into only two lots, one of which shall be located substantially between the pond and the River Road and shall comply with local land use and minimum lot ordinances. This covenant shall run with the land and shall be for the benefit of Lot A on said plan. [¶ 12] Midcoast's plan for Lot B is a condominium community. The plan does not call for a division of the property into more than two lots. Indeed there is only one lot. If the intent of the restrictive covenant was to prohibit the development of condominiums or other multiple unit dwellings, such as an apartment house, the restriction could have so stated. At the time the restriction was created, in 1992, condominiums were commonly used, and were not unknown to those desiring to restrict development. The covenant does not restrict the use to which the land can be put; rather the language restricts only the creation of more than two lots. In the context of this deed, the term lot is used in its ordinary sense, meaning [a] tract of land, esp. one having specific boundaries or being used for a given purpose. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 958 (7th ed. 1999); see also Planning Bd. of Town of Naples v. Michaud, 444 A.2d 40, 43 (Me.1982). The meaning of lot as used in the deed is apparent given that the provision goes on to describe where the boundaries for one of the lots should be located. Using that definition, a dwelling unit cannot be considered a lot because it is not a tract of land. Therefore, the covenant does not prohibit Midcoast from proceeding to develop the condominium units as outlined in its plan for Lot B. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded to the District Court for entry of a judgment in favor of Midcoast Cohousing Land Acquisition LLC consistent with this opinion.