Richard Forshee v. Lee Neuschwander

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring).

*770¶ 30 The lead opinion1 reaches the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. The decision of the court of appeals should be affirmed, but not because "commercial activity" is an ambiguous term that is construed in favor of the free and unencumbered use of the property.

¶ 31 Instead, the decision of the court of appeals should be affirmed because the Neuschwanders did not violate the unambiguous language of the deed restriction.

¶ 32 Because the lead opinion incorrectly concludes that the term "commercial activity" is ambiguous, it fails to address many of…