Axtin v. Morse

Michigan Court of Appeals

Axtin v. Morse

165 N.W.2d 315, 14 Mich. App. 283, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 902

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,953

StatusPublished

This text of 165 N.W.2d 315 (Axtin v. Morse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Axtin v. Morse, 165 N.W.2d 315, 14 Mich. App. 283, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, owner of 5 lots in Colonial Hills Subdivision No 2, sued defendants, owners of the remaining lots in the subdivision, to set aside negative restrictive covenants limiting construction in the subdivision to residential dwellings, plaintiff alleging that the character of her lots has changed so that they are now different in character from those of the defendants.

Although plaintiff on appeal complains that the judgment of the trial court which treats allegedly dissimilar parcels identically under the restrictive covenant deprives her of the benefit of the equal protection clauses of the Federal and State Constitu[284]*284tions, the resolution of this issue becomes a question of fact.

This appeal requires a de novo review of the facts, and there appearing nothing in the record of these facts which indicates that the judgment of the trial court was clearly erroneous (GCR 1963, 517.1), it is affirmed with costs to defendants.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, owner of 5 lots in Colonial Hills Subdivision No 2, sued defendants, owners of the remaining lots in the subdivision, to set aside negative restrictive covenants limiting construction in the subdivision to residential dwellings, plaintiff alleging that the character of her lots has changed so that they are now different in character from those of the defendants.

Although plaintiff on appeal complains that the judgment of the trial court which treats allegedly dissimilar parcels identically under the restrictive covenant deprives her of the benefit of the equal protection clauses of the Federal and State Constitu[284]*284tions, the resolution of this issue becomes a question of fact.

This appeal requires a de novo review of the facts, and there appearing nothing in the record of these facts which indicates that the judgment of the trial court was clearly erroneous (GCR 1963, 517.1), it is affirmed with costs to defendants.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 315, 14 Mich. App. 283, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/axtin-v-morse-michctapp-1968.