Court Opinion

ID: 9671275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:33:51.365665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.150558
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring).
I do not subscribe to this Court’s indication of its approval of the trial judge’s *812ruling, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, excluding the evidence of violations of the restrictive covenants occurring on the east side of Gilbert Avenue on the theory that these infractions were too remote to have affected plaintiff in the full enjoyment of his property, being more than 500 feet from his home.
This ruling, so it seems to me, completely overlooks the nature of the defense herein pleaded. In the beginning of the main opinion, the contention of counsel for defendant is stated to be that “ * * * the entire scheme of development as conceived and established by the subdividers has been abandoned and discarded by those owning land in the Eastridge Subdivision, and that an entirely new and different scheme has emerged in its stead.” Under such pleadings, I think it manifest that defendant was entitled to adduce evidence of multiple violations throughout the entire subdivision regardless of whether all of the infractions were within close proximity to plaintiff’s property or not. And, while violations of the covenants not within close proximity to plaintiff’s property might not, of themselves, have been sufficient to sustain the defense, such violations, when taken in consideration with all other violations not remote to plaintiff’s property, were entitled to consideration in order for the Court to determine whether defendant has proven general abandonment of the original plan.
However, since it appears that this Court has given due consideration to the excluded evidence along with the other proof, and finds that defendant has failed to establish the defense pleaded, I respectfully concur in the decree.