Fink v. Miller
Court of Appeals of Utah
896 P.2d 649 (1995)
- Written by Anjali Bhat, JD
Facts
C. W. Fink (plaintiff) and Shannon and Jim Miller (defendants) both purchased lots in a subdivision subject to protective covenants. The covenants required wood shingles on the roofs of all structures. The covenants further required the approval of building plans by the Community Development Committee. Prior to 1985, the committee received a copy of the covenant agreement with a handwritten addition allowing alternative roofing materials. Consequently, the committee approved plans calling for tile or fiberglass/asphalt shingle roofs prior to 1985. In 1985, the committee learned the covenant had not actually been amended. However, by the end of 1985, some 21 homes had been completed with either tile or fiberglass/asphalt shingle roofs. The committee sought to enforce the restriction to wood shingles after 1985. In 1990, when the Millers requested approval to change their building plans to call for fiberglass shingles, the committee denied their request. The Millers began installing the fiberglass shingles without committee approval. In 1991, Fink sued seeking an injunction to prevent the Millers from installing fiberglass shingles. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Millers, and Fink appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Orme, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
