Prewriting Assignment
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Regent University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
553
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ChancellorArtEmu33
Jameika Draughn
MLAW 553(01)
Issue:
If the use of Mr. Carpenter’s property for the repair and maintenance of his small businesses
welding machine that are kept out of sight behind a fence, affected the feel and character of the
neighborhood.
Facts:
1.
Michael Smart Homeownership
a.
Michael Smart owns a home in the River View Subdivision . He serves as the
president of the River View Homeowners Association.
2.
Riverview Subdivision
a.
Private residential community with about 200 homes, one acre lot each.
Governance established through the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions recorded on June 1, 2001.
3.
Covenant on Land Use
a.
The critical covenant that prohibits lots from being used for anything other than
residential purposes, except for a personal home office.
4.
Gordon Carpenter’s Property
a.
Carpenter purchased a home in the community, his property deed specifically
mentions adherence to the Conditions and Restrictions of River View Subdivision.
5.
Carpenter’s Welding Business
a.
Mr. Carpenter operates a welding business, decided to park two welding trucks on
a cleared area adjacent to his home. The trucks are only used for his business, and
he does maintenance on them at his home.
6.
Association Intervention
a.
Michael Smart, acting as the HOA president, told Mr. Carpenter that his business-
related use of the property violates the residential-use covenant. Mr. Carpenter
refuses to stop parking the trucks on his property.
Analysis- rule of law
A.
Jones v. Park Lane for Convalescents, 384Pa.268,120 A.2d 535 (1956):
Land use restrictions are typically disfavored by the law. Such restrictions are typically
narrowly interpreted, and any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the landowner. In order
for an act to be considered as a violation of a restrictive covenant, it has to be in plain
disregard of the covenant’s exact wording.
Analysis- Case Law
A.
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
B.
The main issue in this matter was if the storage of commercial vehicles on residential
property, was in violation of a covenant allowing only residential use, constituted a
breach of the restrictive covenant. The court enforced the restrictive covenant,
maintaining that the act of storing commercial vehicles on the residential property did
indeed violate the requirements of residential use. In
Baumgardner v. Stuckey,
Mr.
Stuckey, who was a truck driver, had parked commercial vehicles on his residential
property subject to the restrictive covenants allowing only residential use. The covenant
stated that “ The essence of this covenant is to preserve the residential character of the
area. It seeks to prevent the commercialization of property devoted to residential use.”
C.
The circumstances in Mr. Carpenter’s matter and
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
are similar,
where non-residential use of the property was restricted.
D.
The court in
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
upheld the covenant against non-residential use of
the property, whilst putting an emphasis on the importance of preserving the residential
character of the neighborhood.
E.
Given the significant similarities in both Mr. Carpenter’s matter and
Baumgardner v.
Stuckey,
it is very probable that Mr. Carpenter’s use of his property for his welding
business, including the parking of commercial trucks, is a direct breach of the residential-
use covenant in his HOA.
Counter Analysis
One potential defense for Mr. Carpenter could be the argument that his welding falls under the
exception of the covenant of a “personal home office”. Citing that the trucks are essential tools
for his business and are used
only
for that purpose. Secondly, he could challenge the Strict
Interpretation of the covenant. Arguing that the covenants language is overly broad and
ambiguous or that the restrictions interpretation should be more lenient, especially if he can
prove that other residents also engage in the same/similar activities. Proving that other residents
also engage in the same/similar activities, Mr. Carpenter can assert that his use aligns with
customary use within the subdivision. If he can prove that other residents engage in non-
residential activities without consequences, he has the grounds to argue that such practices have
been tacitly accepted.
Conclusion
Concluding the strict and precise examination of the legal principles that have been articulated in
Jones v. Park Lane
and the precedent that
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
set, it can be logically
concluded that Mr. Carpenter’s use of his property, to include the operation of a welding business
and parking commercial trucks, violates the residential-use covenant outlined in the Declarations
of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions governing the Riverview Subdivision. Given the
courts holding in
Baumgardner v. Stuckey,
where the court did indeed enforce a similar covenant
against non-resident use, emphasizing the significance of maintaining the residential character of
the property. The relevance of the quote from the case puts further emphasis on the covenant’s
intent to prevent the commercialization of the property that has been designated solely and
specifically for residential use.
Although, the factual similarities of Mr. Carpenter’s situation and the circumstances in
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
strengthens the argument relating to the covenant violation, it is
important to anticipate the potential defenses that Mr. Carpenter could very well present.
Including, arguments related to the exception of a “personal home office” and/ or challenging the
meaning, or interpretation of the covenant in and of itself.
Recommendation
Thoroughly review Mr. Carpenter’s potential defenses to better understand the strengths
and weaknesses, as well as preparation for rebuttal or cross examination.
Make sure that Mr. Smart has exact and comprehensive documents relating to the
meaning, and enforcement of the covenant. As well as any and all evidence supporting
the violation of the covenant by Mr. Carpenter. Including but not limited to any and all
correspondence, photographs, documents, and any and all other relevant materials.
Be sure to send a formal legal notice to Mr. Carpenter, stating and describing the specific
violation(s) and what is required of him to comply with the covenant. This notice needs
to be created with the assistance of counsel to ensure that it is effective.
Before going straight to court consider mediation in an effort to resolve the dispute,
possibly including a neutral third party such as a mediator/ facilitator in an effort to reach
a mutually agreeable resolution.
If mediation/facilitation does not work and the matter is to be brought in front of a judge,
it is important to consult with counsel to discuss the viability of the matter. This could
include the potential for seeking an injunction to enforce the covenant, as well as other
appropriate legal solutions.
During the entirety of this matter, consult with counsel to navigate and understand what
the Pennsylvania law requires, address potential counterarguments, and provide guidance
to Mr. Smart in an effort to pursue the most effective and legally sound course of action.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help