In Buehrens v. Schave  (2019AP1649), the Court affirmed the circuit court’s finding that the term “garage” as it was used in a residential restrictive covenant was ambiguous, and therefore couldn’t be used to restrict the free and unencumbered use of property.

Facts

The Schaves built a large structure on their property that their neighbors objected to. The restrictive covenant in the neighborhood allowed for garages, but not other structures. The neighbors argued that what the Schaves were building was a pole barn, rather than a garage. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Schaves, finding that the term “garage” was ambiguous, and that restrictions on the free and unencumbered use of property required clear terms. The neighbors appealed.

Decision

The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court on the same grounds. The term garage was not defined in the covenant, and the ordinary definition only requires that it be used to store cars, but there is no size limit. Because the Schaves intended to use their structure to store their vehicles, it was arguable that it was a garage. The term was therefore ambiguous as used, and terms must be clear for restrictive covenants.