Hardy v. Aiken

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a restriction on the use of property must be created in express terms or by plain and unmistakable implication, and “all such restrictions are to be strictly construed, with all doubts resolved in favor of the free use of property”
• noting \a question of fact in a law action [is] subject to an any evidence standard of review when tried by a judge without a jury\ (citation omitted)
• noting \a question of fact in a law action [is] subject to an any evidence standard of review when tried by a judge without a jury\ (citation omitted)
• stating while action potentially might require the court to construe a contract, the underlying action was a declaratory action to declare whether the restrictive covenants were enforceable and thus the standard of review was for an action in equity
• finding a restrictive covenant to be ambiguous because its amendment provision permitted any changes to the covenant while the restrictive covenant itself clearly stated that it expired in twenty-five years and contained no express provision allowing to extend the duration
• “[A] restriction on the use of the property must be created in express terms or by plain and unmistakable implication, and all such restrictions are to be strictly construed, with all doubts resolved in favor of the free use of property.” (emphasis added

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).