Court Opinion

ID: 9938853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:04:03.574566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:29.831728
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent from the main opinion. After receiving ore tenus evidence, the trial court concluded that the restrictive covenants prohibited the placement of a mobile home on any residential lot.
 "`Because the trial court heard ore tenus evidence, the trial court's findings of fact are given a presumption of correctness, and we will not reverse the trial court's judgment based on those findings of fact "unless it is clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, manifestly unjust, or against the great weight of evidence." Odom v. Hull, 658 So.2d 442, 444 (Ala. 1995).'"
Hipsh v. Graham Creek Estates Owners Ass'n, Inc.,927 So.2d 846, 848 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005). I believe that the evidence supports the conclusion reached by the trial court.