Alpenwald Improvement Corp. v. Kelly

Almost twenty years after the subdivision in this lot was created and well after zoning went into effect and regulated the details of property use, the plaintiff is being allowed to bring a suit to enjoin a proposed use that offends no specific requirement of the restrictive covenants and has received a variance under our very strict requirements. I find this holding to be inconsistent with the principles underlying our law on construction of covenants and, accordingly, dissent.

At least since Latchis v. John, 117 Vt. 110, 85 A.2d 575 (1952), our rule on construction of restrictive covenants…