Legal Opinion · Dissent

Winding Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Joffe

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 17, 2007No. COA06-1506Published

1DissentGeer, Judge

Although I would agree as a general matter with the majority opinion’s analysis of the proper meaning of the phrase “single family dwelling,” see Danaher v. Joffe, 184 N.C. App. 642, 650, 646 S.E.2d 783, 788 (2007) (Geer, J., concurring), I would hold in this case that the restrictive covenant, as drafted, is only a limitation on the type of structure that may be placed on the property and not a restriction on the type of occupancy permitted within the dwelling. I believe that this conclusion is mandated by J.T. Hobby & Son, Inc. v. Family Homes of Wake County, Inc., 302 N.C. 64, 274 S.E.2d…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. J. T. Hobby & Son, Inc. v. Family Homes of Wake County, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Double D Manor, Inc. v. Evergreen Meadows Homeowners' Ass'nSupreme Court of Colorado · 1989
  3. Higgins v. BUILDERS AND FINANCE INCORPORATEDCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Permian Basin Centers for Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Alsobrook, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)1986
  5. Danaher v. JoffeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API