Buchanan v. Goode

Michigan Court of Appeals

Buchanan v. Goode

166 N.W.2d 656, 15 Mich. App. 488, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1499

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1969

DocketDocket No. 4,455

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 N.W.2d 656 (Buchanan v. Goode) 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

Buchanan v. Goode, 166 N.W.2d 656, 15 Mich. App. 488, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1499 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs, as surrounding subdivision lot owners, obtained an injunction preventing defendants from dividing their lot and building two [489]*489dwellings in contravention of recorded restrictions common to and adhered to by all bnt one of the other subdivision lot owners. Defendants filed this appeal.

A portion of the restrictions was phrased as follows:

“No building shall be erected on any site excepting one single private residence dwelling * *

Defendants contend that “site” does not refer to any specific land area, i.e., a “lot”, and therefore, the above language applies only to the type of building permissible and not to the number of dwellings which can be erected on each lot. They claim that ambiguous terms should be resolved in favor of the free use of property. The lower court rejected defendants’ word manipulation, stating that “site” and “lot” were synonymous in this matter, and held that the restrictions prohibited the erection of more than a single-residence on each lot. We agree with that reasoning, particularly in a situation where a single residence restriction was respected by the remaining-lot owners to which it applied. See Library Neighborhood Ass’n v. Goosen (1924), 229 Mich 89; Smith v. First United Presbyterian Church (1952), 333 Mich 1.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.

McGregor, P. J., and Fitzgerald and Cynar, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs, as surrounding subdivision lot owners, obtained an injunction preventing defendants from dividing their lot and building two [489]*489dwellings in contravention of recorded restrictions common to and adhered to by all bnt one of the other subdivision lot owners. Defendants filed this appeal.

A portion of the restrictions was phrased as follows:

“No building shall be erected on any site excepting one single private residence dwelling * *

Defendants contend that “site” does not refer to any specific land area, i.e., a “lot”, and therefore, the above language applies only to the type of building permissible and not to the number of dwellings which can be erected on each lot. They claim that ambiguous terms should be resolved in favor of the free use of property. The lower court rejected defendants’ word manipulation, stating that “site” and “lot” were synonymous in this matter, and held that the restrictions prohibited the erection of more than a single-residence on each lot. We agree with that reasoning, particularly in a situation where a single residence restriction was respected by the remaining-lot owners to which it applied. See Library Neighborhood Ass’n v. Goosen (1924), 229 Mich 89; Smith v. First United Presbyterian Church (1952), 333 Mich 1.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.

McGregor, P. J., and Fitzgerald and Cynar, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.W.2d 656, 15 Mich. App. 488, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-goode-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack