The McConnells bought a home in Sherwood Estates. The land was subject to a restrictive covenant that “no building, fence, or other structure” could be built on the land without the approval of the developer of the property. The McConnells built a dog pen in their yard that consisted of a cement base with fencing surrounding the base. They claimed that approval was not required on the theory that the restrictive covenant did not apply because it showed an intent to restrict only major construction, not minor additions to the landscape. A lawsuit was brought to compel the McConnells to remove the dog pen because prior approval had not been obtained. Are restrictive covenants applied this expansively to homeowners? Must the McConnells have prior approval? [Sherwood Estates Homes Ass’n, Inc. v. McConnell, 714 S.W.2d 848 (Mo. App.)]
Answer to relevant QuestionsTaback began building a vacation home on a parcel of wooded land. It was to be a three-story house, 31 feet high. This height violated the local zoning ordinance that limited residential homes to two and one-half stories, ...Kenneth and Mary Norpel purchased a house, and Kenneth attached a 35-foot flagpole to it. He did not obtain the permission of the architectural committee of the Stone Hill Community Association. This consent was required by ...James Santelli was staying at a motel owned by Abu Rahmatullah for several months as he worked at a nearby construction project. Joseph Pryor had been previously employed at the motel as a general maintenance man. There was ...Field executed a will. On her death, the will was found in her safe deposit box, but the part of it containing the fifth bequest had been torn from the will. This torn fragment was also found in the box. There was no ...Click2Boost, Inc. (C2B) entered into an Internet marketing agreement with the New York Times (NYT) on May 10, 2002, for C2B to solicit subscribers for home delivery of the New York Times newspaper through "pop up ads" at ...
Post your question