Court Opinion

ID: 9569440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:13:47.989796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:58:10.666977
License: Public Domain

Hunter, J.
(dissenting)—The restrictive covenant with which we are concerned in this case applies to all the lots contained in the Country Club Addition. This area is situated east of East Wenatchee and overlooks the Columbia River to the west.
It is clear to me, as it was to the trial court, that the restrictive covenants in the notice and agreement are to protect the area for residential purposes. The restrictive covenant in question, in simple language, prohibits the use of any of these residential lots from being used to carry on a “business trade.”
The Wenatchee Golf and Country Club, Inc., proposed to use lots 3, 4 and 5 of block 3, as a permanent parking area for its members and guests in connection with the operation of its club activities. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings that these ac*625tivities include business operations of a nonprofit social club, and that the proposed operation of the parking facilities would be directly related to the accomplishment of this business activity.
The trial judge quotes the following from the case of Bennett v. Consolidated Realty Co., 226 Ky. 747, 11 S. W. (2d) 910. I disagree with the majority opinion that the case is not apposite. It speaks for itself.
“ ‘ The use of the lots by Bennett’s patrons was plainly a use for business purposes. It was necessary to have a parking place for these automobiles. The parking place was an incident to the roadhouse, without which the roadhouse could not have been successfully operated under the circumstances. Bennett was carrying on the business of operating the roadhouse; and, in providing parking places for his patrons, he was simply performing an incident of that business. While such provisions in deeds are not construed to create restrictions beyond the fair and natural meaning of the words used, read in the light of the circumstances under which they were used, they will be enforced according to their fair and natural meaning, in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake. To hold that no trade or business was permitted on these lots would be to refuse to enforce the provision according to the plain meaning of the common words of everyday speech in which it is expressed; for such a use as Bennett was making of the property would be especially objectionable in a residential section, and the restriction was inserted to protect the subdivision for residential purposes.’ ”
The trial judge then stated:
“Now, that is the very purpose of the restriction here, to protect this area for residential purposes. And while it might not be a noxious or offensive use of the land, I don’t see how you can divorce it from the fact that it is a business venture. While it is true that maybe this is a non-profit corporation and that this is used by members for their pleasure, still I think as far as these restrictions go this is a business venture and it is in support of a business venture. If I were to ignore these restrictions I think it would mean that restrictive covenants have no force and effect whatever.”
In my opinion, the reasoning of the Bennett case and the conclusions and logic of the trial judge are unassailable.
*626It seems to me that we would indeed be naive in this period of supermarkets, shopping centers and modern-day business, if we hold that parking areas in connection with business operations are not a part of the business.
The majority say the covenant does not apply to a nonprofit social club. The language “business trade” is broad and encompasses the conduct of any business, be it a private business or a business operated by a nonprofit social club. If it was the intention of the parties to the agreement that the restrictive covenant should not apply to business operations of a nonprofit social club, the covenant should have so provided.
From the tenor of the trial judge’s opinion, I am sure that he appreciated, as do we, the desirability of the Country Club having the use of the lots in question for parking facilities for a more efficient operation of the Country Club’s activities; and that the success of its activities will be reflected generally in the values of the residential properties in the area. The restriction in the covenant must nevertheless apply.
I would affirm the trial court.
Rosellini, C. J., Hill and Hale, JJ., concur with Hunter, J.
April 6, 1965. Petition for rehearing denied.