Opinion ID: 1160483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Single-family residence restriction

Text: The covenant allowing only single-family dwellings provides: SECTION 1. (a) West ½ Lot 11 to thirty seven (37) both numbers inclusive shall be used for single family residence purposes only and that no building or structures other than one family private residence with the customary out buildings (including private garage) shall be erected, maintained or permitted on a building site. Anderson argues that he has not violated this covenant because his residence is nothing more than a single-family dwelling which contains guest quarters. Claiming the term single-family is ambiguous, Anderson claims he is not a resident of the dwelling, but rather is a guest who infrequently stays at the residence. We find the language shall be used for single family residence purposes only and that no building or structures other than one family private residence    shall be erected, maintained or permitted on a building site is clear and unambiguous. The plain and ordinary meaning of single family residence is a residence constructed for the purpose of serving as a dwelling place for one family in a single living unit; a residence constructed and being used for the purpose of serving as the dwelling place of two separate families or two separate living units is outside of this meaning. See Knadler v. Adams, 661 P.2d 1052, 1053-54 (Wyo. 1983); accord Dice v. Central Natrona County Improvement & Serv. Dist., 684 P.2d 815, 818 (Wyo.1984). It is undisputed that Anderson leases the residence to tenants, excluding the motel room and the separate furnished basement living unit. Thus, the tenants do not and cannot have exclusive enjoyment and use of the entire residence as one, single-family living unit. It is undisputed that Anderson has resided in the motel room at different times, and that the separate furnished basement unit was used by his son and a friend. Such multi-family use is in clear violation of the covenants. Anderson additionally asserts that his use is permitted because the Jackson building inspector issued to him a building permit, inspected the construction and approved the residence pursuant to the Jackson ordinances. We cannot countenance this contention. As we stated in Fox v. Miner, 467 P.2d 595, 597 (Wyo.1970), it is well settled that zoning ordinances cannot override, annul, abrogate, or relieve land from building restrictions or covenants placed upon them. Lacking any evidence that the restrictive covenants are invalid, illegal or contrary to public policy, we follow precedent in holding that the Jackson ordinances cannot relieve Anderson of his obligation to uphold the restrictive covenants.