Peter H. Yogman and Diane E. Walker, Husband and Wife, Raymond C. Miller and Myrtle L. Miller, Husband and Wife, And…

Summary

The court held that the restrictive covenant's prohibitions on use for anything other than residential purposes and on commercial enterprises were ambiguous as applied to defendants' short-term vacation rentals. Because the text, context, and available evidence of the parties' intent did not resolve the ambiguity, the court applied the rule requiring strict construction of restrictive covenants against the restriction and concluded that the rentals were permissible. The Court of Appeals was affirmed, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment for defendants.