Opinion ID: 884430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Sayre/Sipes Home

Text: We held above that the last sentence of Paragraph 5 of the covenant is not ambiguous; that it clearly proscribes mobile homes and thus the Toavses' motion for summary judgment must be granted as against Sundseths. However, the Sayre/Sipes guest home is another matter. Even though the last sentence clearly says [n]o mobile homes ... may be used, the covenant, when read as a whole, contains two caveats which inure to the benefit of Sayre/Sipes. First of all, the initial sentence of Paragraph 5 of the covenant states: No tent, trailer or other temporary shelter [missing words] for dwelling purposes nor shall any basement or garage be so used unless and until there is a completed private single family dwelling used in connection therewith. The District Court was correct in concluding that this opening sentence, from which words were obviously omitted, is ambiguous. Despite any ambiguities, it is clear that the author was attempting to draft some sort of prohibition on use of temporary dwellings. Whatever may have been intended by the prohibition, it is readily apparent that it would not apply if the dwelling were used in conjunction with a completed single family dwelling. In light of the qualifying language, it is apparent that a trailer or mobile home is allowed after a single family dwelling has been built on the property. Sayre/Sipes' position is further buttressed by the last sentence of Paragraph 5 of the covenant which states: No mobile homes or temporary dwellings may be used as the sole dwelling on any tract after July 1, 1977. The District Court concluded that this sentence was ambiguous as to whether it restricted use of mobile homes as temporary dwellings or restricted use of all mobile homes, including those placed on cement blocks with proper siding. That ambiguity, however, is immaterial to the Sayre/Sipes situation. Again, the sentence in question contains qualifying language: No mobile homes or temporary dwellings may be used as the sole dwelling on any tract after July 1, 1977. The sentence clearly contemplates that a mobile home is permissible so long as it is used in addition to a main residence. Sayre/Sipes were not using the mobile home as the sole dwelling. Rather it was being used as a guest house in conjunction with their main residence. Accordingly, although we affirm the District Court's granting of summary judgement for Sayre/Sipes, we do so, not because of ambiguity, but because Sayre/Sipes' guest home falls within the permissive implication of the last sentence of Paragraph 5 of the restrictive covenants. Affirmed as to Sayre/Sipes and reversed as to the Sundseths. TURNAGE, C.J., and REGNIER, NELSON and TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.