Ps purchased residential lots located in the Winchester South Subdivision from Winchester Development Company, Inc. (Winchester), the successor in interest to the original developer Red Dog Realty Partnership (Partnership). The lots were subject to certain recorded deed restrictions. Restriction No. 2 provides that: No more than one single family dwelling with no less than a two-car nor more than a two and one-half car attached garage, shall be erected on any lot in the subdivision. Restriction No. 7 provides that: No dwelling, tennis court, swimming pool, fence, or other structure shall be erected or maintained on any lot in the subdivision unless the plans therefore, showing the nature, kind, shape, height, material, color scheme, and location of said structure, and the elevation and grading plans of the lot to be built upon, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the architectural firm of D or such other authority as the Partnership, by a duly recorded amendment to these Restrictions, may designate for that purpose. Ps submitted their construction plans to D for approval. Ps' plans were disapproved because their plans contained three-car garages in violation of Restriction No. 2. Sometime later, D approved plans of other lot owners in the Winchester South Subdivision for homes with three car garages. P sued D. The court dismissed the complaint and Ps’ appealed. The Superior Court reversed and D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.