Court Opinion

ID: 9732215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:12:12.176653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:13.116759
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
(dissenting). Before trial was held on the merits the defendant Rosenblatt moved the court for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Judge Michael T. Sullivan, before whom such matter was heard, *264filed a memorandum decision under date of June 21, 1955, in which he held that the erection of the dwelling house by Rosenblatt on lot 5 of block 1 of Green Tree; Valley subdivision, while there was still maintained thereon the building housing the water utility, constituted a “palpable violation” of the restrictive covenants of the plat, while Judge Hanley came to the opposite conclusion on the trial had on the merits. I find myself in agreement with the holding of Judge Sullivan as to there being a violation of the restrictive covenants.
Paragraph 1 of the plat restrictions reads as follows:
“The land herein described and referred to as ‘Green Tree Valley,’ except as hereinafter provided, shall be used for private residence purposes only, and no building of any kind whatsoever, except as provided hereinafter, shall be erected or maintained thereon except private dwelling houses, each dwelling being designed for occupancy by a single family, and private garages for the sole use of the respective owners or occupants of the lot upon which such garages are erected.”
The exception in favor of the water utility appears in the following wording of paragraph 4 of such plat restrictions:
“Nothing in this paragraph or in any other paragraph of these restrictions shall be construed to prevent the erection and maintenance of equipment and structures to house the necessary equipment used in the operation and maintenance of the proposed co-operative water system, as well as any other equipment owned, used, or maintained by the owners of the ‘Green Tree Valley’ property for their joint use in the maintenance of lawns, parkways, highways, and the like.”
An ambiguity is presented as to whether both a dwelling house and the building housing the water utility may be maintained on the same lot. On this question the intent of the Read Investment Company, which was the owner in fee of the land at the time of the recording of the plat, and which drafted the plat restrictions, is material. Stein v. *265Endres Home Builders, Inc. (1938), 228 Wis. 620, 624, 280 N. W. 316. Such intent can be gathered from the practical construction said Read Investment Company has given to these restrictions. Georgiades v. Glickman (1956), 272 Wis. 257, 266, 75 N. W. (2d) 573.
The Read Investment Company in its letter of December 15, 1953, to the plaintiff, set forth in finding of fact No. 6, stated that if at some future time the water utility was abandoned on lot 5, then such lot 5, together with the adjoining vacated portion of the street, would become a salable residential lot, and the letter granted the plaintiff the first option to purchase in such event. It can be reasonably inferred from this that the Read Investment Company did not consider that both the water utility and a residence could be maintained on lot 5 at the same time. A further evidence of intent of the Read Investment Company to be gained from its practical construction of the restrictions is the fact that such company attempted to amend the plat restrictions so as to expressly permit the maintenance of both the water utility and the residence on lot 5. While 21 of the 40 lot owners signed such amendment, paragraph 8 of the plat restrictions provided that such amendment required the signatures of the owners of at least three fifths of the land in the plat to such an amendment, so such amendment failed of adoption. It is difficult to believe that the Read Investment Company would have initiated such attempt to amend the plat unless it was under the belief that such a step was necessary in order to permit the erection of a dwelling house on lot 5 while the water utility still was housed there.
I would construe paragraphs 1 and 4 of the restrictions to mean that while the restrictions as to the use of each lot for single-family dwelling-house purposes did not prevent the maintenance of the water utility on lot 5, the presence of the . water utility on such lot does prevent it from being used also for dwelling-house purposes. This is consistent with the practical construction which the Read Investment Company *266itself placed on the plat restrictions, and seems to me to be better in accord with the underlying objective of the restrictions than the interpretation which the majority opinion has placed thereon.
I would therefore reverse and remand with directions to grant the injunction against the defendant Rosenblatt prayed for in plaintiff's complaint.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Steinle joins in this dissent.