{
  "id": 8526155,
  "name": "RIVERVIEW PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and CHARLES WILSON, RALPH FRAME, ROSE MARY WHALEY, LEON FERGUSON, JACK HOLMES and WILLARD RITTER, Individually v. JACK WELDON HEWETT, DANLEY MARK HOOKER, JOAN MOONEY HEWETT, LORA FAYE MOONEY CLEMMONS, DONNA DEAN, STEVEN DEAN, MARION WOODYARD, JANICE POWELL, BILLY JO HEWETT, RICKY CLEMMONS, R. A. CLEMMONS, RACHEL HEWETT, HANK WILLIAMS, ROYCE WOODYARD, MORRIS MOONEY, PAM MOONEY, TOM WILLIAMS, JACK POWELL, STEPHANIE KELLY GREER, JOYCE TALBERT, MERLE MOONEY and SNOOKY WHALEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Riverview Property Owners Ass'n v. Hewett",
  "decision_date": "1988-07-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 8713DC813",
  "first_page": "753",
  "last_page": "755",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.C. App. 753"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "65 S.E. 2d 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614341
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0613-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 15",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "18"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550014
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "376"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 619",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "624"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628035
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "625"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0619-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "238-39"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563495
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "268"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 S.E. 2d 686",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521823
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 302",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 607",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619735
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0607-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 421,
    "char_count": 5827,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.817,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.377818758190087e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44204044328453124
    },
    "sha256": "2bf122a9f407edba5fba0115c87f11d2d2564cca7e8fffe472412ea7f4e8af34",
    "simhash": "1:141eeea60c49746c",
    "word_count": 924
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:12.261630+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ARNOLD and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RIVERVIEW PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and CHARLES WILSON, RALPH FRAME, ROSE MARY WHALEY, LEON FERGUSON, JACK HOLMES and WILLARD RITTER, Individually v. JACK WELDON HEWETT, DANLEY MARK HOOKER, JOAN MOONEY HEWETT, LORA FAYE MOONEY CLEMMONS, DONNA DEAN, STEVEN DEAN, MARION WOODYARD, JANICE POWELL, BILLY JO HEWETT, RICKY CLEMMONS, R. A. CLEMMONS, RACHEL HEWETT, HANK WILLIAMS, ROYCE WOODYARD, MORRIS MOONEY, PAM MOONEY, TOM WILLIAMS, JACK POWELL, STEPHANIE KELLY GREER, JOYCE TALBERT, MERLE MOONEY and SNOOKY WHALEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nPlaintiffs made and brought forward eleven assignments of error, not one of which states \u201cthe basis upon which error is assigned,\u201d as Rule 10(c) of our appellate rules requires. These are broadside assignments that for the reasons stated in innumerable decisions of our Courts, including Columbus County v. Thompson, 249 N.C. 607, 107 S.E. 2d 302 (1959), and Pamlico Properties IV v. SEG Anstalt Co., 89 N.C. App. 323, 365 S.E. 2d 686 (1988), do not call into question any of the court\u2019s specific findings and conclusions that plaintiffs argue in their brief.\nNevertheless, we have considered plaintiffs\u2019 several arguments and reject them. The following principles of law apply: Restrictive covenants, being in derogation of the unfettered use of land, must be \u201cstrictly construed against limitations\u201d on the use of property, Long v. Branham, 271 N.C. 264, 268, 156 S.E. 2d 235, 238-39 (1967); ordinarily the opening or maintenance of a street or a right-of-way \u201cfor the better enjoyment of residential property as such does not violate a covenant restricting the property to residential purposes,\u201d Callaham v. Arenson, 239 N.C. 619, 625, 80 S.E. 2d 619, 624 (1954); whether traveling over a lot restricted to residential purposes in getting to adjacent property violates the restriction depends upon the circumstances involved. Franzle v. Waters, 18 N.C. App. 371, 376, 197 S.E. 2d 15, 18 (1973). Under the facts of this case the appellees\u2019 use of Hooker\u2019s Lot 49 to get to Hewett\u2019s place on the river is no violation of the Riverview Subdivision restrictive covenants and the court was not required to permanently enjoin the practice, as the appellants contend. When our Courts have held that using a lot as a right-of-way violated the covenant restricting its use to residential purposes, they did so upon facts quite different from those recorded here. For example, in Long v. Branham, supra and in Franzle v. Waters, supra, the defendants were undertaking to open and maintain a street across their lots to an adjoining subdivision, which would have greatly increased traffic into the development; and in Starmount Company v. Greensboro Memorial Park, Inc., 233 N.C. 613, 65 S.E. 2d 134 (1951), the defendant was undertaking to construct and maintain a road across his lot to a commercially operated cemetery, which would have also increased traffic and attracted many strangers to the subdivision. In this case no street for general use has been constructed or attempted; no commercial activity or traffic by outsiders is involved; the appellee lot owners are merely traveling across the lot to a non-commercial, private, riverside recreational retreat that one of them owns.\nAffirmed.\nJudges ARNOLD and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anderson & McLamb, by Sheila K. McLamb and Mason H. Anderson, for plaintiff appellants.",
      "Martin, Wessell & Raney, by John C. Wessell, III, for defendant appellees Jack Weldon Hewett and Hanley Mark Hooker."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RIVERVIEW PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and CHARLES WILSON, RALPH FRAME, ROSE MARY WHALEY, LEON FERGUSON, JACK HOLMES and WILLARD RITTER, Individually v. JACK WELDON HEWETT, DANLEY MARK HOOKER, JOAN MOONEY HEWETT, LORA FAYE MOONEY CLEMMONS, DONNA DEAN, STEVEN DEAN, MARION WOODYARD, JANICE POWELL, BILLY JO HEWETT, RICKY CLEMMONS, R. A. CLEMMONS, RACHEL HEWETT, HANK WILLIAMS, ROYCE WOODYARD, MORRIS MOONEY, PAM MOONEY, TOM WILLIAMS, JACK POWELL, STEPHANIE KELLY GREER, JOYCE TALBERT, MERLE MOONEY and SNOOKY WHALEY\nNo. 8713DC813\n(Filed 19 July 1988)\nDeeds \u00a7 20\u2014 restrictive covenant in subdivision \u2014 lot used lor access to another lot \u2014 covenant not violated\nDefendants\u2019 use of a little, cleared pathway across one defendant\u2019s subdivision lot to get to the other defendant\u2019s lot which was outside the subdivision did not amount to a violation of restrictive covenants limiting use of subdivision lots to \u201csingle family residential or recreational purposes,\u201d since the pathway led only to the second defendant\u2019s riverfront lot, and that lot was used by defendants occasionally for fishing, roasting oysters, and otherwise having a good time.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Hooks, Judge. Judgment entered 29 May 1987, nunc pro tunc 19 May 1987, in District Court, Brunswick County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 February 1988.\nThe only defendants involved in this appeal are Danley Mark Hooker, who owns Lot 49 in a Brunswick County subdivision known as Riverview, and Jack Weldon Hewett, who owns Lot 2 in the subdivision and a tract outside the development that lies between Hooker\u2019s Lot 49 and the Shallotte River. The two appellees occasionally go to Hewett\u2019s riverside tract, which has a mobile home on it, to fish, roast oysters and otherwise enjoy themselves; and in getting there they travel across Hooker\u2019s lot by a little, cleared pathway that leads only to Hewett\u2019s property, which is used only for recreational and social purposes. Plaintiffs, who either own Riverview lots or represent persons who do, seek to enjoin the appellees from using Hooker\u2019s lot in getting to Hewett\u2019s place on the ground that their use violates covenants which limit the use of Riverview lots to \u201csingle family residential or recreational purposes\u201d and which prohibit \u201cnoxious or offensive activity\u201d on any lot or anything \u201cwhich may be or become a nuisance or any annoyance to the neighboring lot owners.\u201d Following a hearing on plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment at which affidavits and other materials were considered the court found facts in substance as above stated, concluded that the described use of Hooker\u2019s lot does not violate the Riverview restrictions, and dismissed plaintiffs\u2019 complaint against Hooker by summary judgment and the complaint against Hewett on the pleadings, which we treat as a summary judgment also since materials other than pleadings were considered.\nAnderson & McLamb, by Sheila K. McLamb and Mason H. Anderson, for plaintiff appellants.\nMartin, Wessell & Raney, by John C. Wessell, III, for defendant appellees Jack Weldon Hewett and Hanley Mark Hooker."
  },
  "file_name": "0753-01",
  "first_page_order": 783,
  "last_page_order": 785
}
