Prewriting Assignment

.docx

School

Regent University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

553

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChancellorArtEmu33

Jameika Draughn MLAW 553(01) Issue: If the use of Mr. Carpenter’s property for the repair and maintenance of his small businesses welding machine that are kept out of sight behind a fence, affected the feel and character of the neighborhood. Facts: 1. Michael Smart Homeownership a. Michael Smart owns a home in the River View Subdivision . He serves as the president of the River View Homeowners Association. 2. Riverview Subdivision a. Private residential community with about 200 homes, one acre lot each. Governance established through the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions recorded on June 1, 2001. 3. Covenant on Land Use a. The critical covenant that prohibits lots from being used for anything other than residential purposes, except for a personal home office. 4. Gordon Carpenter’s Property a. Carpenter purchased a home in the community, his property deed specifically mentions adherence to the Conditions and Restrictions of River View Subdivision. 5. Carpenter’s Welding Business a. Mr. Carpenter operates a welding business, decided to park two welding trucks on a cleared area adjacent to his home. The trucks are only used for his business, and he does maintenance on them at his home. 6. Association Intervention a. Michael Smart, acting as the HOA president, told Mr. Carpenter that his business- related use of the property violates the residential-use covenant. Mr. Carpenter refuses to stop parking the trucks on his property. Analysis- rule of law A. Jones v. Park Lane for Convalescents, 384Pa.268,120 A.2d 535 (1956): Land use restrictions are typically disfavored by the law. Such restrictions are typically narrowly interpreted, and any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the landowner. In order for an act to be considered as a violation of a restrictive covenant, it has to be in plain disregard of the covenant’s exact wording. Analysis- Case Law A. Baumgardner v. Stuckey B. The main issue in this matter was if the storage of commercial vehicles on residential property, was in violation of a covenant allowing only residential use, constituted a

breach of the restrictive covenant. The court enforced the restrictive covenant, maintaining that the act of storing commercial vehicles on the residential property did indeed violate the requirements of residential use. In Baumgardner v. Stuckey, Mr. Stuckey, who was a truck driver, had parked commercial vehicles on his residential property subject to the restrictive covenants allowing only residential use. The covenant stated that “ The essence of this covenant is to preserve the residential character of the area. It seeks to prevent the commercialization of property devoted to residential use.” C. The circumstances in Mr. Carpenter’s matter and Baumgardner v. Stuckey are similar, where non-residential use of the property was restricted. D. The court in Baumgardner v. Stuckey upheld the covenant against non-residential use of the property, whilst putting an emphasis on the importance of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. E. Given the significant similarities in both Mr. Carpenter’s matter and Baumgardner v. Stuckey, it is very probable that Mr. Carpenter’s use of his property for his welding business, including the parking of commercial trucks, is a direct breach of the residential- use covenant in his HOA. Counter Analysis One potential defense for Mr. Carpenter could be the argument that his welding falls under the exception of the covenant of a “personal home office”. Citing that the trucks are essential tools for his business and are used only for that purpose. Secondly, he could challenge the Strict Interpretation of the covenant. Arguing that the covenants language is overly broad and ambiguous or that the restrictions interpretation should be more lenient, especially if he can prove that other residents also engage in the same/similar activities. Proving that other residents also engage in the same/similar activities, Mr. Carpenter can assert that his use aligns with customary use within the subdivision. If he can prove that other residents engage in non- residential activities without consequences, he has the grounds to argue that such practices have been tacitly accepted. Conclusion Concluding the strict and precise examination of the legal principles that have been articulated in Jones v. Park Lane and the precedent that Baumgardner v. Stuckey set, it can be logically concluded that Mr. Carpenter’s use of his property, to include the operation of a welding business and parking commercial trucks, violates the residential-use covenant outlined in the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions governing the Riverview Subdivision. Given the courts holding in Baumgardner v. Stuckey, where the court did indeed enforce a similar covenant against non-resident use, emphasizing the significance of maintaining the residential character of the property. The relevance of the quote from the case puts further emphasis on the covenant’s intent to prevent the commercialization of the property that has been designated solely and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help