Opinion ID: 837889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: effect of the restrictive covenant

Text: Defendants maintain that the restrictive covenant of 1974 intended to prohibit any building on the property until the end of time. They argue that the plain language of the restrictive covenant reflects this. The restrictive covenant states, It is hereby covenanted and agreed that no building, structure or dwelling shall be constructed on Lot 2 of said plat unless and until a municipal sewer line is made available to the premises. Defendants claim that the covenant prohibits building a home on Lot 2 until the owners of Lots 1, 3, and 4, explicitly grant permission to create an easement for municipal sewer service. This interpretation is not reflected in the words of the covenant. As the trial court pointed out: A plain reading of this restriction contradicts Defendant's [sic] argument: if the grantors wanted to forever preclude any construction on Lot 2, the restriction would have stated as much in explicit language by ending the provision after the word plat [so that it read [t]hat it is hereby covenanted and agreed that no building, structure or dwelling shall be constructed on Lot 2 of said plat]. Defendants' argument in this regard must therefore fail. The restrictive covenant merely prevented construction on Lot 2 until sewer service became available to that lot.