Court Opinion

ID: 9511220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:02:59.396283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:55.806654
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COTTER
dissents.
¶14 I dissent. Gagnon conceded that his home was a “mobile home.” Covenant 5.14 therefore applies to ban its placement on the lot. The second sentence of this provision excepts from the Covenant’s application pre-built homes on permanent foundations that meet U.S. Federal Housing Specifications “as non-mobile permanent residential homes.” (Emphasis added). Given his admission, Gagnon’s home simply does not qualify as a non-mobile home. In my judgment, that should be the end of the inquiry. I would therefore affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of GMROA.
JUSTICE WARNER joins in the dissent of JUSTICE COTTER.