Associations should amend condominium or community documents to be more specific in regard to recreational vehicles
I recently came across an instance where an association wanted to sue a co-owner because he refused to move his travel trailer from the driveway. The association claimed that the co-owner was in direct violation of the restrictive covenants which state that co-owners may not park camper trailers in driveways or roadways.
The co-owner stated that the restrictive covenant in question is vague because one sentence refers to only recreational vehicles while another sentence refers to travel trailers and recreational vehicles. The co-owner stated that because of the confusion brought upon by the ambiguous nature of the covenants, the association should not be able to enforce the restrictive covenant against the travel trailer.
Generally, courts construe covenants narrowly so that they must be stricly interpreted. However, a recent court case with similar facts out of Alabama ruled that the member's vehicle was covered by the restrictive covenant and the co-owner could not park the vehicle in his driveway.
The court explained that the ordinary meaning of the word "recreational vehicle" is broad enough to include the member's vehicle. It added that the purpose of the restrictive covenant is to promote esthetic uniformity, and that purpose would not be advanced by allowing such narrow distinctions as the member had proposed.
There is, of course, no guarantee that this would be the result in Michigan, or any other state for that matter, and the association is encouraged to revise their condominium or community documents to be more specific and less vague.