Pellegrini v. Fournie, 34859
| Decision Date | 30 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 34859,34859 |
| Citation | 501 S.W.2d 564 |
| Parties | Louis C. PELLEGRINI et al., Appellants, v. Robert G. FOURNIE et al., Respondents. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Walter S. Berkman, Clayton, for appellants.
Lashly & Goodall, Pendleton Goodall, Jr., Brentwood, Jackson F. Adams, Clayton, for respondents.
Plaintiffs appeal from a decree denying injunctive relief. The issue: When a restrictive covenant prohibits the erection of fences 'along a lot line' should an owner be enjoined from enclosing a tennis court eleven feet inside his lot lines. We say no and affirm.
In southwest St. Louis there is a pleasant residential area known as St. Louis Hills, developed as a subdivision many years ago. The lots therein are subject to an 'Indenture Agreement' providing in part that 'no fence (except such ornamental fences as may be approved in writing by the Trustees) shall be erected along the sides or rear line of any lot.' (Our emphasis).
The crux of this appeal is the desire of the defendants to enclose a tennis court on their property. Backstops have been in place for some time and it was defendants' intention to complete the enclosure by fencing the sides of the court. The neighboring plaintiffs Pellegrinis and Sansones objected and filed suit, urging that defendants' fencing project violated the aforementioned restriction by being built 'along the sides' of defendants' lot.
As noted, the trial court denied relief, finding that the proposed tennis court enclosure would be at least 11 feet inside defendants' lot line and concluded the fencing restriction in the Indenture was ambiguous.
It is well established that in construing restrictive covenants, the intent of the grantor-covenantor is controlling and is to be ascertained from the language used, viewed in light of the entire context of the instrument. Tracy v. Klausmeyer, 305 S.W.2d 84 (Mo.App.1957) (5, 6). It is likewise settled that restrictive covenants are to be strictly construed, are not to be extended by implication to include anything not clearly expressed in them. If there is substantial doubt of their meaning, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the free use of the property. Chiles v. Fuchs, 363 Mo. 114, 249 S.W.2d 454 (1952) (4).
Given these principles, we hold the trial court's interpretation of the Indenture was correct. Plaintiffs cite several old cases defining 'along,' seeking to establish that defendants' tennis court enclosure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v. Galloway
...should be considered, however, and not just one clause. Weiss v. Fayant, 606 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Mo.App.1980); Pellegrini v. Fournie, 501 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Mo.App.1973). Such covenants are to be interpreted narrowly, and in so doing the court must be careful not to go beyond the express stipula......
-
Hall v. American Oil Co.
...is to be resolved in favor of the free use of the property. Steve Vogli & Co. v. Lane, 405 S.W.2d 885 (Mo.1966); Pellegrini v. Fournie, 501 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1973) (No. 34,859). But that is not to say that a covenant of the type in this case, ostensibly imposing a land restriction upon sub......
-
Blackburn v. Richardson
...Ltd., 746 S.W.2d at 644; Dierberg v. Wills, 700 S.W.2d at 468; Buoncristiani v. Randall, 526 S.W.2d at 72; Pellegrini v. Fournie, 501 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Mo.App.1973). Here, the prohibition against construction which would effectively block any view of Table Rock Lake exceeded the intent and p......
-
Weber v. Les Petite Academies
...any ambiguities will be resolved so as to avoid such restrictions. Vogli & Co. v. Lane, 405 S.W.2d 885 (Mo.1966); Pellegrini v. Fournie, 501 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1973) and Cash v. Catholic Diocese of Kansas City St. Joseph, 414 S.W.2d 346 (Mo.App.1967). Further, there is the even more fundame......