Opinion ID: 2456428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court Findings and Holding

Text: Trial was to the court. The testimony sharply conflicted as to Stanley Hornsby's oral representations of his intentions for the retained property. The evidence ranged from testimony that could reasonably be interpreted to mean that Hornsby intended all the subdivision property to be restricted, to testimony lending itself to the conclusion that Hornsby intended the retained property to be unrestricted in all respects. The trial court filed numerous findings of fact, including these: 17. The restrictions at issue were part of a general plan for development of the subdivision by the original subdividers, Stanley and Sarah Agnes Hornsby and Charles and Bernice McCormick. 18. This general plan of development involved protection/preservation of the strictly residential character of the subdivision, prohibition of business-commercial activities within the subdivision, and provision for change or modification of the restrictions by vote of the owners of parcels within the subdivision. 19. The general plan of development of the original subdividers (Stanley and Sarah Agnes Hornsby, Charles and Bernice McCormick) was that all lakefront property within the subdivision be burdened with the same restrictions. 20. Stanley Hornsby and his real estate broker represented to various purchasers that all lakefront parcels (i.e. all parcels except Block F) were restricted to residential use only and that business-commercial use thereof was prohibited.       22. Non-enforcement of the general plan of development as to the lakefront lots will decrease the value of the lots purchased and presently owned by Plaintiffs Arnold and Kay Sousares. The trial court rendered judgment declaring that the restrictions at issue applied to the five lakefront lots owned by the Hornsby devisees and enjoining them from conveying any interest in the lots without including the restrictions in the conveyance.