{
  "id": 1897021,
  "name": "Virginia WELCHMAN v. Bobby NORMAN, Sr., and Patsy M. Norman, Kevin Coakley and Mary Lisa Coakley, and Debra Jones",
  "name_abbreviation": "Welchman v. Norman",
  "decision_date": "1992-11-10",
  "docket_number": "92-9",
  "first_page": "52",
  "last_page": "55",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "311 Ark. 52"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "841 S.W.2d 614"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 870",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756240
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0870-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "731 S.W.2d 63",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9961457
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/731/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 Ark. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1744823
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/280/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 Ark. 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1886753
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/300/0225-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 384,
    "char_count": 5645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.915,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.06822490002526e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5591007429390671
    },
    "sha256": "b93d64b312b0ceb792667716f0ef0235fb1b252e77fafd5c5c455233d65a4753",
    "simhash": "1:fa1b8ec2b72c23be",
    "word_count": 899
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:33.473421+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Virginia WELCHMAN v. Bobby NORMAN, Sr., and Patsy M. Norman, Kevin Coakley and Mary Lisa Coakley, and Debra Jones"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from the chancellor\u2019s finding that the appellant\u2019s residence violates a restriction in the appellant\u2019s deed prohibiting mobile homes. Below and here on appeal, appellant does not deny the existence of the restriction but instead contends that her residence is a manufactured home and is not covered by the restriction. Appellant also argues that the restrictive covenant is invalid because a general development plan had not been maintained in the subdivision. We are not persuaded by the appellant\u2019s arguments and therefore affirm.\nNeighbors of the appellant, appellees, brought this lawsuit to force the appellant to remove her residence from her property because it violated the land use restriction against mobile homes found in both parties\u2019 deeds. This restriction provided the following: \u201cNo house trailer or mobile home shall be parked on any part of said tract nor maintained thereon for residence or other purposes.\u201d The neighbors all testified that they were worried that a mobile home on the appellant\u2019s property would adversely affect their property values.\nOn appellate review, we try chancery cases de novo and will not reverse the chancellor\u2019s findings unless clearly erroneous. Conway Corporation v. Construction Engineers, Inc., 300 Ark. 225, 782 S.W.2d 36 (1989). In considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor\u2019s finding, we view the evidence most favorable to the appellee. Wasp Oil, Inc. v. Arkansas Oil & Gas, Inc., 280 Ark. 420, 658 S.W.2d 397 (1983).\nThe chancellor heard the following evidence about the appellant\u2019s residence. Appellant\u2019s residence was transported to her property in two sections. Each section had steel beams attached underneath with wheels attached. Upon arrival at the property site, the wheels, axles and tongue were removed and the two sections were put together. Concrete footings were not poured prior to the placement of the home and tie-downs or anchors were used to stabilize the home. Appellant\u2019s residence rests on concrete piers.\nAfter the placement of the home, appellant spent approximately $5,000 in putting in a septic tank, and building a front porch, a carport and storage room. Appellant also had a rock \u201cfoundation\u201d built around the front of her mobile home, but she testified that she did not know if the foundation supported the house absent the concrete piers. Other witnesses stated the rock \u201cfoundation\u201d was merely a skirting around the appellant\u2019s residence. While there was evidence presented to the contrary, three witnesses, who were familiar with mobile homes, testified that the appellant\u2019s residence was a mobile home.\nOther evidence before the chancellor included a copy of the Department of Finance and Administration Registration listing the appellant\u2019s residence as a mobile home. Appellant\u2019s policy of insurance on her residence also lists the insured structure as a mobile home. In addition, appellant bought her residence from Quality Mobile Homes.\nThis court has never addressed the difference between a mobile home and manufactured home. But both parties cited the court to cases from other jurisdictions discussing the differences between mobile homes and manufactured homes. The case most similar to the present case is Albert v. Orwige, 731 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). There, the Orwiges also argued that their home was a manufactured home, not a mobile home. The residence was transported by truck to the property in two units. The two parts were bolted together and tied down by anchors to concrete footings. The structure was further enclosed by an additional concrete foundation. The Tennessee court held that the Orwiges\u2019 home was a mobile home.\nLikewise, we hold here that the chancellor\u2019s finding that the appellant\u2019s residence is a mobile home is not clearly erroneous. Witnesses identified the appellant\u2019s residence as a mobile home, and most telling, the majority of the appellant\u2019s papers concerning her residence labeled it as a mobile home. While we note the appellant\u2019s contention that, in order for the residence to be moved, the rock \u201cfoundation\u201d would have to be removed and the wheels reattached, a majority of jurisdictions have held that a mobile home remains a mobile home notwithstanding removal of the wheels and placement on a permanent foundation. R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, \u00a7 14.03, p. 675 (1986).\nIn the second issue, the appellant argues that the restrictive covenant cannot be upheld because there is no general plan of development. We do not agree. The primary test of the existence of a general plan of development or improvement of a tract of land divided into a number of lots is whether substantially common restrictions apply to all lots of like character or similarly situated. Jones v. Cook, 271 Ark. 870, 611 S.W.2d 506 (1981). Out of the forty-three tracts in the subdivision, only six tracts, one a cemetery, were not subject to the same restrictions. As we stated in Jones, the mere showing of other violations does not always constitute acquiescence or waiver of the restrictions. That is the situation here.\nFor the reasons stated above, we affirm.\nAppellant testified that when she signed the registration certificate the place for the body style was blank and that someone filled in mobile home after she signed the form.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hobbs, Lewis, Mitchell, Garnett & Naramore, P.A. by: Ronald G. Naramore, for appellant.",
      "J.E. Sanders, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Virginia WELCHMAN v. Bobby NORMAN, Sr., and Patsy M. Norman, Kevin Coakley and Mary Lisa Coakley, and Debra Jones\n92-9\n841 S.W.2d 614\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 10, 1992\nHobbs, Lewis, Mitchell, Garnett & Naramore, P.A. by: Ronald G. Naramore, for appellant.\nJ.E. Sanders, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0052-01",
  "first_page_order": 76,
  "last_page_order": 79
}