Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jarrett v. Valley Park, Inc.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1996No. 95-417Published

1DissentJustice Leaphart

I dissent. As the District Court correctly concluded, the restrictive covenant at issue is not tied to a common plan or scheme for the Village of St. Marie, and it confers a personal benefit upon the designate — in this case the brother of the developer who drafted the covenants. Paragraph II(Q) of the restrictive covenants provides that:

No television satellite receiving dishes shall be placed on any portion of the property except by Valley Park, Inc. or its designate. Radio and television antennas and aerials may be placed on the property as approved by the architectural committee.

Thus, as…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Urban Farms, Inc. v. SeelNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
  2. Urban Farms, Inc. v. SeelNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1966
  3. DeWolf v. Usher Cove Corp.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API