Ambiguous language in restrictive land use covenants can now be interpreted by consulting extrinsic evidence. In Windcliff Association, Inc. v. Aaron Breyfogle, Et al., decided April 19, the Minnesota Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the district court for a jury to determine the meaning of the restrictive covenant. Read the article………………………..
Related Post
April 6, 2019
November 11, 2016
Comments are closed.