Save Sea Lawn Acres Ass'n v. Mercer
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
¶1
Grosse, J.
Extrinsic evidence to interpret a covenant is limited to the interpretation of the covenant itself and may not be used to show an intention independent of the instrument. Thus, a sales brochure claiming an unobstructed view for lots in one plat does not aid in the interpretation of a covenant that burdens lots in a separate and distinct plat. Here, where the parties in one plat have revoked the restrictive covenant for that plat, the owners of lots in an adjacent but separate plat cannot enforce that restrictive covenant. We affirm.
*413FACTS
¶2 Sea Lawn Acres Investment Company…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Berg v. HudesmanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- Hollis v. Garwall, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1999
- Burton v. Douglas CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1965
- Lenhoff v. Birch Bay Real Estate, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1978
- Leighton v. LeonardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Washington Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. AlsagerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Walters v. ColfordNebraska Supreme Court · 2017
- WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAV. & LOAN v. AlsagerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011