Court Opinion

ID: 9659765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:54:19.446077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.435491
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, P. J.
(concurring). Finding myself unable to agree with much of what the majority has stated, I must concur separately.
The words used in restrictions set forth in deeds must be given their ordinary significance. Broeder v Sucher Bros, Inc, 331 Mich 323, 326; 49 NW2d 314 (1951). Harris v Roraback, 137 Mich 292; 100 NW 391 (1904). Unless the use proposed is clearly in violation of a restriction, it will not be enjoined. Sampson v Kaufman, 345 Mich 48; 75 NW2d 64 (1956).
The rather substantial dwelling defendants placed upon their lot would not ordinarily be considered a house trailer. Assembled, placed upon a foundation and connected to utilities, this structure of over 1,000 square feet does not fit within the ordinary meaning of house trailer.
The injunction should not have issued to restrain a use not clearly within the restrictions.