Interpretation of a restrictive covenant; “Timber line”; Proper remedy; Equitable exceptions to the general enforcement rule; Webb v Smith (After Remand); Standing to enforce restrictive covenants

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in determining there was a line that “property owners were required to build behind and that the defendants’ home violated” it, or in ruling that the proper remedy was to tear down the part encroaching over that line. Further, plaintiffs, as owners of property benefited by the restrictive covenant, had standing to enforce it. The case arose from a dispute between neighbors in a subdivision located on a bay. In the declaration of covenants issued by the developer, ¶ 4 provided that no “buildings shall be constructed closer to the shore than the timber line along” the bay and not closer to a specified road than 50 feet. “Further, no building shall be constructed closer to the side lot than” 15 feet. The parties disputed the meaning of “timber line.” The court noted that the use of the two-word term “may have been intended to be interpreted differently than the recognized definitions for the single word ‘timberline.’” However, it determined that “the technical definition of ‘timber line,’ ‘timberline,’ or ‘tree line’ is not automatically dispositive of the claims” here and could not be considered in a vacuum. The “trial court did not err by considering the other provisions within the covenants to determine the intent of the developer. Aside from the timber line boundary, the rest of ¶ 4 establishes eastern, northern, and southern boundaries for a home built on a lot.” In addition, there was “no dispute that a home cannot be built directly on the shore, or that there is some kind of western boundary. As a result, the language of ¶ 4 is evidence of the developer’s intent to maintain the uniformity of the lots by mandating where a house could be built.” The declaration’s preamble “explained that the purpose of the restrictions was to keep the ‘lots desirable, uniform and suitable in architectural design.’” In light of the whole declaration and the covenants, “it was not erroneous for the trial court to determine that there was a ‘line’ in which houses were meant to be built behind, or at the very least, an area in each lot in which houses could be built.” As to the remedy, the trial court did not have to apply a balancing test, and while “removal may seem harsh, defendants were aware of the dispute and possible consequences early in the construction process.” Affirmed.