Head v. Gray
938 So. 2d 1084, 2006 WL 2422865 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a building restriction is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, creating ambiguity as to the subdivider's intent, the court must adopt the interpretation that least restricts the use of the property.
Facts:
- In July 1977, Jacobs, Inc. created the Cypress Point Subdivision and recorded protective covenants to govern the property.
- One covenant, titled 'Temporary Structures' (Restriction #8), stipulated that no 'mobile home' shall be placed or used on any lot as a residence.
- Richard and Cinder Mutter acquired a home manufactured by Franklin Homes, Inc., which was constructed in two large sections.
- The Mutters had the two sections of their home transported to Lot 8 in the Cypress Point Subdivision.
- The sections were assembled on a permanent concrete foundation, which included a perimeter footing and cement block support piers.
- The home was completed on-site with a pitched roof and attic space, and it complies with the same building codes as site-built homes.
- A group of other lot owners in the subdivision observed the Mutters' home and believed it violated the covenant against mobile homes.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Head, Jr., and other lot owners (Plaintiffs) sued Adolphus Lee Gray and the Mutters (Defendants) in a Louisiana trial court.
- The Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction for the removal of the Mutters' home from the subdivision.
- The trial court found in favor of the Plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction ordering the removal of the home.
- The Defendants appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a multi-section manufactured home, assembled on-site and placed on a permanent concrete foundation, violate a subdivision's restrictive covenant that prohibits the placement of a 'mobile home' on a lot?
Opinions:
Majority - Caraway, J.
No, the Mutters' manufactured home does not violate the restrictive covenant. Doubt as to the extent of a building restriction must be resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of the immovable property. The court found significant ambiguity in the term 'mobile home,' which does not have a generally prevailing meaning that clearly encompasses modern, multi-section manufactured homes assembled on a permanent foundation. The court interpreted Restriction #8 within the context of the entire set of covenants, noting that they permit structures to be 'placed' (not just 'erected') on lots and lack specific aesthetic controls. Furthermore, Restriction #8 is titled 'Temporary Structures' and addresses structures of a 'temporary character,' which does not describe the Mutters' home on its permanent foundation. Given these ambiguities, the interpretation that least restricts the property must apply, thereby permitting the home.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the critical importance of precise drafting in restrictive covenants, especially as housing technology evolves. It establishes that generic, older terms like 'mobile home' may be too ambiguous to prohibit modern manufactured or modular housing. The ruling reinforces Louisiana's strong public policy favoring the free and unrestrained use of immovable property, placing a high burden on plaintiffs to prove that a restriction is clear and directly applicable. For future subdivision planning, this case serves as a warning that drafters must use specific, updated language—such as explicitly prohibiting 'manufactured homes' or requiring all dwellings to be 'stick-built on-site'—if they intend to exclude such structures.
