## Facts

- A subdivision developer recorded protective covenants limiting lots to residential use and prohibiting “temporary structures,” including trailers and mobile homes, from being used as residences.
- The covenants permitted residential structures to be “placed or erected” on lots and contained no express architectural or aesthetic controls.
- A lot owner allowed another couple to construct and occupy a modular residence on the lot.
- The residence arrived in multiple factory-built modules, was joined on-site, placed on and affixed to a permanent foundation, and finished with conventional framing and a pitched roof.
- The completed dwelling complied with applicable building-code requirements for a site-built residence.
- Neighboring lot owners sued for a permanent injunction, alleging the modular home violated the “no mobile homes/temporary structures” restrictions.
- The trial court agreed and ordered removal of the home; the defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a modular residence assembled from factory-built sections, permanently affixed to a foundation, and finished on-site is a prohibited “mobile home” or “temporary structure” under the subdivision’s restrictive covenants.
2. Whether the covenants’ “placed or erected” language and the absence of aesthetic restrictions prevent extending a “no mobile homes/temporary structures” clause to bar a permanent modular home.
3. How strict construction of restrictive covenants affects classification of modern building methods not expressly addressed by the covenant text.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s injunction ordering removal of the residence.
- The court held the modular home, as installed and finished, was not a “mobile home” or “temporary structure” within the meaning of the covenants.
- Judgment was rendered in favor of the lot owner and the occupants, permitting the modular residence to remain.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants are construed strictly; ambiguity is resolved in favor of the free use of property and against extending restrictions by implication.
- A residence transported in sections is not, by that fact alone, a prohibited “mobile home” or “temporary structure” when it is permanently affixed to a foundation and functions as a conventional dwelling.
- Covenant language allowing structures to be “placed” as well as “erected” supports allowing certain permanent residences that arrive largely constructed.
- Courts will not infer aesthetic or design limits from a “temporary structures/mobile homes” clause when the covenants contain no express architectural restrictions.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the covenants did not clearly prohibit a permanent, code-compliant modular home and refused to treat modular construction as equivalent to a mobile home or temporary structure; the injunction requiring removal was reversed.


Head v. Gray, 938 So. 2d 1084 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006)