White v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 27 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--6092,5--6092 |
| Citation | 487 S.W.2d 615,253 Ark. 476 |
| Parties | Martha WHITE et al., Appellants, v. Carl L. LEWIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Martin, Dodds, Kidd, Hendricks & Ryan, Little Rock, for appellants.
Paul A. Schmidt, Little Rock, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by appellee Carl L. Lewis to enjoin appellants, the Whites, from converting a garage area into a beauty salon, allegedly in contravention of the terms of a bill of assurance. The court sustained appellee's prayer, holding that the bill of assurance could not be amended for twenty-five years from March 16, 1956, the date of its recordation. On appeal it is contended that the bill of assurance could be amended prior to the twenty-five year period.
The parties are owners and occupiers of residences in Maryland Terrace, an addition to North Little Rock. The determinative portions of the bill of assurance are as follows:
All of the land described herein and any interest therein shall be held and owned subject to and in conformity with the following restrictions and covenants which subject to being amended or cancelled as provided hereinafter, shall be and remain in full force and effect for twenty-five years, to-wit:
No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other than one one-family or two-family dwelling not to exceed one and one-half stories in height and a private garage for not more than two cars.
These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of twenty-five years from the date these covenants are recorded, after which said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by a majority of the owners of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part.
Appellants filed an agreement to alter in part the bill of assurance, which agreement was signed by more than one-half of the property owners in the subdivision. The twenty-five year period has not yet expired.
Appellants contend there is uncertainty in the language of the covenant and therefore freedom of restraint should be decreed, relying on Hays v. Watson, 250 Ark. 589, 466 S.W.2d 272 (1971). The same case is authority for the proposition that the intention of the parties, as shown by the covenants, shall govern.
When the recited provisions of the bill of assurance are read in toto we think the restriction and the provisions for waiver are unambiguous. In simple terms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuire v. Bell
...451 S.W.2d 445 (1970). In construing covenants, the intention of the parties, as shown by the covenants, shall govern. White v. Lewis, 253 Ark. 476, 487 S.W.2d 615 (1972). The ordinary method of establishing restricted districts when new subdivisions are surveyed and platted is to file a pl......
-
Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners
...whether an amendment made during the initial term may be effective before the initial term is over. See, e.g., White v. Lewis, 253 Ark. 476, 487 S.W.2d 615 (1972); Johnson v. Howells, 682 P.2d 504 (Colo.App.1984); Illini Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Elsah Hills Corp., 112 Ill.App.3d 356, 68......
-
HELTMAN v. CATANACH
...a similar provision a covenant cannot be modified by less than unanimous consent during the initial period, see White v. Lewis, 253 Ark. 476, 487 S.W.2d 615, 616 (1972), that is not what occurred here. We hold that the unanimous agreement of the then-owners of the properties in the subdivis......
-
City of Gulfport v. Wilson, 89-CA-0470
...effect for another 10 years. See Dauphin Island Property Owners Association v. Kuppersmith, 371 So.2d 31 (Ala.1979); White v. Lucas, 253 Ark. 476, 487 S.W.2d 615 (1972). Finally, 4 A.L.R.3d 570, Sec. 4[b] "Usually the right to amend, extend, or nullify the restrictions must be exercised by ......