Court Opinion

ID: 9569190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:11:21.129765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:18.295165
License: Public Domain

Judge COZORT
dissenting.
The trial court’s order in favor of defendant is confusing, at best. The defendant’s president testified that the plans were not rejected because of the square footage requirement, even though they “could have been rejected for that reason” because the plans “missed it by about 30 to 50 square feet.” He further testified that two houses built by the developer in the early stages of the development were also deficient on square footage, but no action was taken. The only reason given to plaintiffs in the letter rejecting their plans is: “The proposed structure reflects a marked departure from home-building styles prevailing throughout the area.” This evidence was uncontradicted.
In its findings of fact, the trial court found:
9. The plaintiffs’ . . . plans did not meet the restrictive covenant square footage requirement ....
10. The plaintiffs’ . . . plans did not meet the general roofline design of the houses in the area ....
* ★ * *
14. The rejection of the Plaintiffs’ . . . plans is upheld based upon their failure to meet the square footage requirement of the restrictive covenants; no finding is made as to the facade or geodesic design.
In its conclusions of law the trial court stated:
6. The rejection of the Plaintiffs’ . . . plans due to square footage requirements was a valid exercise of authority under the restrictive covenants ....
Plaintiffs excepted to the findings of fact and conclusion of law quoted above.
I do not believe we can affirm the trial court’s holding for defendant apparently on the issue of square footage. There is simply *50no evidence to support a finding that the plans were rejected on that basis. Furthermore, I do not believe the evidence would support a finding or conclusion that it was proper for defendant to reject the plans because of the geodesic dome design. The pictures of the existing houses in the development, which were tendered as exhibits, demonstrate that almost all of the houses are of a contemporary design, including A-frames and designs which feature roofs of varying heights and slopes. I simply do not find any evidentiary support for the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ proposed design is a “marked departure from the home building styles” in the area or that the plans “did not meet the general roofline design of the houses in the area,” as stated in the majority opinion. I do not believe there was justification for defendant’s rejection of plaintiffs’ plans on that basis.
I vote to reverse the trial court and to remand the cause for entry of judgment for plaintiffs.