Callaham v. Arenson

Decision bere turns on whether or not the plaintiffs’ proposed plan for resubdividing their four lots into smaller units violates the restrictive covenant contract made by the original developers of this property, the defendants Boldridge.

The applicable rules of interpretation require that the meaning of the contract be gathered from a study and a consideration of all the covenants contained in the instrument and not from detached portions. Lewis v. May, 173 N.C. 100, 91 S.E. 691. See also Singas v. Insurance Co., 236 N.C. 734, 73 S.E. 2d 788; Indemnity Co. v. Hood, 226 N.C. 706, 40 S.E. 2d…