J. T. Hobby & Son, Inc. v. Family Homes of Wake County, Inc.

BRITT, Justice.

In deciding this appeal, we need to address only one issue: Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that the restrictive covenant was violated by the “institutional” use of the property by defendant? We answer in the affirmative.

Our resolution of this issue turns upon our construction of two phrases contained in the restrictive covenant upon which plaintiffs rely: “residential purpose” and “single-family dwelling.”

We begin our analysis of this case with a fundamental premise of the law of real property. While the intentions of the parties to restrictive covenants ordinarily…