Garland v. Carnes

• Decision Date: 01 June 1989
• Docket Number: No. 46492,46492
• Citation: Garland v. Carnes, 259 Ga. 263, 379 S.E.2d 782 (Ga. 1989)
• Parties: GARLAND v. CARNES et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 782

379 S.E.2d 782

259 Ga. 263

GARLAND v.CARNES et al.

No. 46492.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 1, 1989.

James E. Cornwell, Jr., Cornwell, Church & Healy, Toccoa, for Tammy M. Garland.

J. Michael Brown, Clayton, for Patricia A. Carnes, et al.

HUNT, Justice.

Garland brought this action against the Carnes to enforce a subdivision's restrictive covenant providing:

No mobile home or trailers and buildings with metal roofs or metal siding or no complete concrete block buildings shall be placed on the property.[Emphasis supplied.]

The trial court found the covenant ambiguous in that the prepositional phrase "with metal roofs or metal siding," could be read to describe either (1) only "trailers and buildings" or (2)"mobile home" as well as "trailers and buildings."Accordingly, the trial court permitted parol evidence and found the intent of the drafter/developer was to prohibit only mobile homes with metal roofs or metal siding.Thus, the trial court held the covenant did not exclude manufactured homes such as that installed by the Carnes, which have a shingle roof and hard board siding.

We find no ambiguity in the covenant.While it is possible to read "with metal roofs or metal sidings" as defining "mobile home," thus excluding the Carnes' home, it does not follow that the contract is necessarily ambiguous.SeeHolcomb v. Word, 239 Ga. 847, 848, 238 S.E.2d 915(1977).It is the duty of the trial court to construe a covenant to carry into effect the intention of the parties, which is to be discerned from the whole instrument.SeeWhite v. Legodais, 249 Ga. 849, 850, 295 S.E.2d 99(1982).Here, a reading of the covenant as a whole shows an intent to exclude mobile homes, as used in the every-day sense of that...