In Thiel v Goyings, a 68-page Michigan Supreme Court opinion, the court by a 5-2 majority overruled the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals and upheld the trial court’s decision denying a request for an injunction compelling removal of a home.
The restrictive covenants prohibited moving modular, pre-fabricated, or mobile homes to a lot. The covenants also required homes to be stick-built on site and prohibited pre-fabricated or modular homes to be erected on a parcel. The defendants’ construction began in the traditional manner with the pouring of foundation and basement walls, but then three “modules” constructed off site were truck in and craned into location on the foundations. The neighbors sued, claiming the construction violated the covenants. After a three-day trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed and the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned and remanded the case for entry of an injunction compelling the removal of the home, as previously reported here. However, the defendants appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
In this author’s opinion, the decision could have gone either way. After some sophisticated semantic analysis, the majority held that, while aspects of the home were modular, overall the home was not a modular home in violation of the covenants.
After reading the majority opinion, the concurrence, and the dissent, it seems clear that each side is able to garner support for its position and to show holes in the opposite’s sides analysis on whether or not the covenants were violated in this case, but in the end, five justices disagreed with two others. While not of any compelling precedential value because of the unique circumstances (indeed, the majority notes that deciding whether covenants are violated is a case-by-case analysis), the opinions do contain a fairly complete recitation of the law pertaining to enforcement of restrictive covenants.