Court Opinion

ID: 9511227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:03:01.084712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:56.376163
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COTTER
concurs.
¶391 concur in the Court’s Opinion. I write separately to comment on the covenants at issue. As indicated in the Court’s Opinion, the unrecorded covenants included a prohibition on commercial activity. However, the covenants that were later recorded did not contain this prohibition. ¶ 9. At first blush, it might be arguable that the contents *495of the recorded covenants should supercede the unrecorded covenants on this point. However, this argument was not squarely presented by the appellants; in fact, they admitted knowing that the unrecorded covenants precluded commercial activity on the property. ¶ 25. Moreover, it was undisputed that the certificate of subdivision applicable to Johnston’s lot provided that only single-family dwellings would be permitted. Thus, the fact that the subsequently recorded covenants did not preclude commercial activity is of no consequence under the facts presented here. I therefore concur.