COR Dev., LLC v. Coll. Hill Heights Homeowners, LLC
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01810-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01810-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-25-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-15-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Condominium development - Restrictive covenants - Plat alteration - Section 19-27-31 - Section 17-1-23(4) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-29-2006 Appealed from: Lafayette County Chancery Court Judge: Talmadge Littlejohn Disposition: TRIAL COURT GRANTED INJUNCTION AGAINST COR DEVELOPMENT. Case Number: 2005-400(A) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | COR DEVELOPMENTS, LLC, ET AL. |
LAWRENCE LEE LITTLE,
TARA BETH SCRUGGS |
||
| Appellee: | COLLEGE HILL HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS, LLC | OMAR D. CRAIG |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Condominium development - Restrictive covenants - Plat alteration - Section 19-27-31 - Section 17-1-23(4) |
| Summary of the Facts: | College Hill Heights Homeowners, LLC filed a complaint requesting an injunction to prevent COR Developments, LLC from building a fifty-unit condominium development on seven lots in the subdivision. After a hearing, the chancery court granted the injunction. COR appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The restrictive covenants at issue in this case were contained in a warranty deed which stated that “As part of the consideration for this conveyance, Lots 3 through 20, inclusively, are not to be re-subdivided, are to be used for single or multi-family residential purposes only; and no residential structure shall be constructed on said lots which does not have a fair market value including the value of the land of at least $15,000.00 for single-family residences, or $22,000.00 for multi-family residences based upon the latest published commodity price index of the United States Government.” The chancery court found that the planned condominium development was, in practical effect, a "subdivision by subterfuge" in violation of the restrictive covenants prohibiting resubdivision of the seven lots. Further, the chancellor found that the Hickory Cove project contravened the restrictive covenants because the covenant drafters had intended a family-type subdivision and they could not have envisioned that "multi-family" development could signify a condominium project with "one hundred and fifty-three parking spaces." COR argues that Hickory Cove would not violate the covenant against re-subdividing the lots because a condominium development does not necessitate subdivision of the property on which it lies. COR promotes a definition of "subdivision" as "the division of a thing into smaller parts" and argues that a condominium development involves division of ownership of the land rather than division of the land itself. Mississippi Condominium Law specifically states that what is divided in a condominium project is not a tract of land, but the ownership thereof. A condominium development splices the ownership of a tract of land into multiple estates, each consisting of a unit coupled with a share of the common areas. It does not involve the creation of new, smaller lots from the extant tract. Construing the term "re-subdivided" most strongly against the homeowners and in favor of COR, the prohibition that the lots were not to be re-subdivided meant that the platted lots were not to be divided into smaller tracts of land and then re-platted as a subdivision. It would be unreasonable to find that the covenant drafters intended that a lot owner, who alienated a portion of a lot without assigning it a separate lot number, was engaged in prohibited re-subdividing. This is especially so in light of the covenant's allowance of multi-family residential structures on the lots, which contemplates more than one property owner per lot. Therefore, the chancellor manifestly erred by finding that the condominium development violated the covenant against re-subdividing the lots. The chancellor found that the Hickory Cove project would violate the covenants because the covenant drafters could not have envisioned that multi-family residential purposes could include a fifty-unit condominium development. COR argues that this finding ignored the plain language of the covenants and substituted the chancellor's own contrary interpretation. It is apparent from the chancellor's finding that he considered the term "multi-family residential use" to be ambiguous as to whether this use would include the Hickory Cove condominium project. Having found the term ambiguous, the chancellor looked to the intent of the covenant drafters and found that they could not have intended a large-scale development like Hickory Cove. However, no evidence was brought out at the hearing pertaining to whether, in 1970, the term "multi-family residential purposes" would have included condominiums. All of the evidence before the chancellor pertaining to the definition of multi-family residential use was that it included condominiums. By finding that the covenant's drafters intended to prohibit condominiums, the chancellor effectively construed the covenants against COR and in favor of the homeowners. This was manifest error. The chancellor also held that building Hickory Cove would necessitate statutory alteration of the plat and enjoined COR from proceeding with construction of Hickory Cove until such time as it had secured alteration of the plat in conformance with statutory procedures. COR argues that this ruling was error. For the Court to determine that the plat has been altered through abandonment of the road and easements, when there has been no chancery court determination after proper notice under section 19-27-31, would be to permit COR to sidestep the procedure for plat alteration that has been prescribed by the Legislature. Therefore, COR remains enjoined from proceeding with the development of Hickory Cove until such time as it has secured leave to do so after proper plat alteration proceedings pursuant to section 19-27-31 or section 17-1-23(4). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
