Clem v. Christole, Inc.

I must dissent from the majority position. I believe that:(1) The homes at issue are not violative of the restictive covenants; and(2) Regardless of the aforementioned, Ind. Code § 16-13-21-14 was a proper exercise of state police powers.

I. Restrictive Covenants-

Plaintiffs-Appellants, the residential subdivision property owners, argue that the homes developed by Christole and Hopewell violate certain restrictive covenants in their deeds that prohibit structures other than single or two-family dwellings, and/or commercial activity within the subdivisions. Restrictive covenants typically found…