Defendants David
and Helen Goyings purchased a lot in the Timber Ridge Bay subdivision and then designed
a “system-built” home that included three modules built off-site, transported
to their lot, affixed permanently to the foundation, and incorporated into the
final stick-built project. Plaintiffs Matthew and Nikole Thiel, who also own a
home in the subdivision, filed this lawsuit, alleging that defendants were in
violation of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants that prohibit a “modular
home.” Plaintiffs sought a court order for removal of defendants’ home. Following
a bench trial, the trial court determined that defendants’ home did not violate
the restrictive covenants because the uncontroverted testimony was that the
home would be a visually attractive home of equal or superior quality to other
homes that could have been entirely stick-built on site. The court also found that
defendants’ system-built home was not a “modular home” because it was primarily
stick-built on site, and because the modules were not a complete residence upon
delivery. The court further noted that other homes in the area included components
that were prefabricated, and no objection had been raised. Thus, the court
denied plaintiffs’ request for an order directing defendants to remove the
home. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished
opinion, ordering removal of the home. The Supreme Court has directed oral
argument on defendants’ application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether
defendants’ home is a “modular home” as defined by Timber Ridge Bay’s
“Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants and Conditions”; and (2) if so, whether
the violation was a technical violation that did not cause substantial injury, Cooper v Kovan, 349 Mich 520, 530
(1957).