Opinion
No. COA08-347.
Filed 7 April 2009.
Deeds — restrictive covenants — construction of attached garage
The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in a case seeking to enforce a subdivision's restrictive covenants after defendants constructed a garage attached to their residence that allegedly violated the side yard setback requirements contained in the restrictions because: (1) the language of the pertinent restrictions expressly excepted attached garages from the setback restrictions applicable to other outbuildings, and nothing in the restrictions suggested that an attached garage was subject to the twenty-five feet setback for the primary residence; and (2) the Court, of Appeals will not rewrite the restrictions nor go back and examine extrinsic evidence to interpret them.
Judge STROUD concurring.
Appeal by plaintiffs from order entered 4 January 2008 by Judge Nathaniel J. Poovey in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 September 2008.
Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe Garofalo, L.L.P., by Hatcher Kincheloe, Harmony W. Taylor, and Gerald A. Stein, II, for plaintiff-appellants. James, McElroy Diehl, P.A., by Gary S. Hemric, Adam L. Ross, and Sarah M. Brady, for defendant-appellees.
Where a Restriction Agreement is clear and unambiguous, this Court will not re-write the restrictions nor go back and examine extrinsic evidence to interpret the restrictions.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Jeffrey N. and Carrie L. Brighton (defendants) own Lot. 18, Block 4 of Tuckaway Park Subdivision located in Charlotte, North Carolina. A plat of the Subdivision is recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds for Mecklenburg County in Deed Book 1580 at page 511. The plaintiffs also own property in the Subdivision; Larry Craig and Deloris II. Nodgin's (Hodgins) property adjoins defendants' property.
Tuckaway Park is a restricted residential subdivision. A Restriction Agreement dated 29 March 1954 is recorded in Deed Book 1673 at page 553 of the Mecklenburg County Register. An amendment to the restrictions was filed 20 September 1971 in Deed Book 3348 at page 539. In pertinent part, the restrictions provide:
A. Residence. No residence may be located nearer to the front property line than fifty (50) feet, or nearer to an inside property line than twenty-five (25') feet; except that as to Lot 4, Block 2, and Lot 4, Block 4, no residence may be located nearer the front property line on Carmel Club Drive than twenty-five (25') feet; and, as to lots 6 and 7, Block 3, no residence may be located nearer the front property line than forty (40') feet.
B. Outbuildings. No outbuilding, except a garage attached to the main residence may be located nearer to the front property line than One Hundred (100') feet, or nearer to an inside property line than seven (7') feet.
Defendants constructed a garage, attached to their residence, on the side of their lot that adjoins the Hodgins' property. On 16 February 2007, plaintiffs Hodgin filed a complaint against defendants asserting that the structure violated the side yard setback requirements contained in the restrictions. By order dated 5 July 2007, plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint. The amended complaint asserted that defendants had violated the restrictive covenants for the Subdivision. Plaintiffs requested that the trial court permanently enjoin defendants "from violating any of the restrictions set forth in the Restriction Agreement[,]" and "enter an Order requiring the Defendants to remove any improvements on Defendants' property that are in violation of the Restrictions[.]"
Defendants' answer asserted a number of affirmative defenses including that the residences of the plaintiffs violated the Restriction Agreement and that they were barred from enforcing the restrictions based upon unclean hands, breach of contract, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, and abandonment. Defendants further asserted a contingent counterclaim based upon front setback violations of the plaintiffs' residences.
On 29 October 2007, defendants served a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to "Plaintiffs'" claim for a permanent injunction." Both parties submitted affidavits in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
On 4 January 2008, the trial court, entered an Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment. Although the order is captioned "Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment," the trial court granted summary judgment as to all of plaintiffs' claims and dismissed plaintiffs' action.
Plaintiffs appeal.
II. Standard of Review
The appellate courts of this state review the granting of a motion for summary judgment based upon whether there was a material issue of fact and whether one of the parties was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Coastal Plains Utilities., Inc. v. New Hanover Cty., 166 N.C. App. 333, 340, 601 S.E.2d 915, 920 (2004). It is based upon the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions presented to the court. Pacheco v. Rogers Breece, Inc., 157 N.C. App. 445, 447, 579 S.E.2d 505, 507 (2003).
III. Ambiguity of the Restriction Agreement
In their first argument, plaintiffs contend the restrictions are ambiguous as to limits on outbuildings; therefore, "[b]y the sheer definition of ambiguity, the parties to this Restriction Agreement have brought forth a genuine issue of material fact as to the meaning and intent of the Restriction Agreement. . . ." We disagree.
Plaintiffs filed affidavits with the court asserting that their interpretation of the restrictions was that the garage could be located no closer than twenty-five feet from a side lot line. They further argue that the conflict between the interpretation set forth in their affidavits and the defendants' affidavits creates a material issue of fact making the granting of summary judgment, improper.
Where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous, the construction of the agreement is a matter of law; and the court may not ignore or delete any of its provisions, nor insert words into it, but must construe the contract as written, in the light of the undisputed evidence as to the custom, usage, and meaning of its terms.
Hemric v. Groce, 169 N.C. App. 69, 76, 609 S.E.2d 276, 282 (2005) (quoting Martin v. Martin, 26 N.C. App. 506, 508, 216 S.E.2d 456, 457-58 (1975)), cert. denied, 359 N.C. 631, 616 S.E.2d 234 (2005). "If the plain language of a contract is clear, the intention of the parties is inferred from the words of the contract." Walton v. City of Raleigh, 342 N.C. 879, 881, 467 S.E.2d 410, 411 (1996) (citing Lane v. Scarborough, 284 N.C. 407, 410, 200 S.E.2d 622, 624-25 (1973)). If the language is clear and only one reasonable interpretation exists, "the courts must enforce the contract as written; they may not, under the guise of construing an ambiguous term, rewrite the contract or impose liabilities on the parties not bargained for and found therein." Gaston Cty. Dyeing Mach. Co. v. Northfield Ins. Co., 351 N.C. 293, 300, 524 S.E.2d 558, 563 (2000) (quoting Woods v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 295 N.C. 500, 506, 246 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1978)).
We hold that the language of the restrictions is clear and unambiguous. Plaintiffs argue the terms of the restrictions are ambiguous, and an attached garage is not an "outbuilding" but is a "residence." They contend that once a garage is attached to the main residence, it becomes part of the residence and is therefore subject to the twenty-five feet setback requirement.
The restrictions do not define either "outbuilding" or "garage;" however, "garage" is mentioned in Paragraph III(B), under the headingOutbuildings. "No garage may provide space for more than three (3) automobiles."
The use of outbuildings is restricted by paragraph II(C) of the restrictions:
C. Outbuildings. No outbuilding may be erected on any lot other than such as is customarily incidental to residential use. No out-building, trailer, or temporary, or incomplete structure, may be used as a residence, except that the family of a servant of the family occupying the main residence may occupy a permanent outbuilding.
The restrictions further state in paragraph IV(B), under the headingOutbuildings. "No outbuilding, except a garage attached to the main residence may be located. . . ." (emphasis added). This language expressly excepts attached garages from the setback restrictions applicable to other outbuildings. Nothing in the restrictions suggests that an attached garage is subject to the twenty-five feet setback for the primary residence. Therefore, we conclude that the restrictions are clear and unambiguous, and we will not re-write the restrictions nor go back and examine extrinsic evidence to interpret them. Because we conclude that the restrictions are unambiguous, we do not reach plaintiffs' remaining arguments.
AFFIRMED.
Judge JACKSON concurs.
Judge STROUD concurs in separate opinion.