Mulberry Ass'n v. Richards

GULOTTA, Judge.

The central issue with which we are confronted is whether use of a residence for a “law office” violates a restrictive covenant which states that “the use of said property shall be limited to residential purposes.” The trial judge concluded that such use is not violative of the restriction. We disagree. Accordingly, we reverse.

The matter was submitted on a stipulation of facts. One of the stipulations is that “defendant engages in the practice of law and maintains his office and home at the premises named in the suit.” The issue, therefore, before us is purely a legal one.

In…