Court Opinion

ID: 9575061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:11:05.786957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:52.034392
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(concurring) :
I concur in the judgment of the majority opinion that the restrictions do not embody any general scheme of development. Under the restrictions, the land can be developed for industrial, commercial or residential use, subject to minor limitations expressing the covenanting parties personal dislikes. The restrictions fail to provide for a scheme of development and accordingly can not be enforced inter sese on the theory of a negative easement by implication. Edwards et al. v. Surratt, 228 S. C. 512, 90 S. E. (2d) 906 (1956).
I expressly do not join the portion of the majority opinion which intimates that properly drafted covenants restricting land to residential use and excluding mobile homes within the meaning of residential use would be invalid if a person can build a permanent home which resembles a mobile home. I do not believe the majority opinion will be so interpreted, but if it is, I do not share that position.