Smith v. Butler Mountain Estates Property Owners Association, Inc.
North Carolina Court of Appeals
90 N.C. App. 40 (1988)

- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Butler Mountain Estates was a residential development with a number of restrictive covenants. One covenant required all houses to have a habitable floor space on the main level of at least 1100 square feet. Another covenant stated that all housing plans had to be approved by the Butler Mountain Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. (the association) (defendant). The association created an architectural-review committee, which was responsible for reviewing all proposed housing plans. Daniel and Alice Smith (plaintiffs) owned a lot in Butler Mountain Estates. The Smiths submitted plans for a geodesic-dome house to the review committee, but the plans were rejected for not meeting the minimum square-footage requirement. The committee also stated that the Smiths’ proposed house was a marked departure from the existing houses in the development. Indeed, the proposed house had an irregular, domed roofline, whereas the existing houses had conventional, horizontal rooflines. The Smiths subsequently brought suit against the association, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The trial court granted the association’s motion to dismiss, and the Smiths appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.