Court summons-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

57. The Restrictive Covenant provides that the Restrictive Covenant can be terminated upon application to the city. 58. Because the circumstances have changed,the Lake Parcel is now a buildable lot. 59. Defendant has failed to perform as required under the Agreement by refusing to terminate the Restrictive Covenant as contemplated. 60. Such failure of Defendant to perform is a default under the Agreement. 61. Plaintiffs desire to proceed with building on the Lake Parcel, as would be allowed but for the Restrictive Covenant. 62. Plaintiffs cannot be sufficiently compensated except by specific performance of the Agreement and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT V RECISSiON 63. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of the Complaint. 64. Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest entered into the Restrictive Covenant based on the misrepresentations of the Defendant that it was solely to allow for a dock and would not bar future development of the Lake Parcel should circumstances change. 65. Despite a clear record to the contrary that the intent of the Restrictive Covenant was to allow Plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest to keep her dock, Plaintiffs discovered the representations made by Defendant was false and that Defendant now intends to use the Restrictive Covenant to prevent any development on the Lake ParceL 66. Based on the Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recission of the Restrictive Covenant. COU1�1T VI MUTUAL MISTAKE 67. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 66 of the Complaint. 68. On July 23, 2001, Defendant and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest entered into the Restrictive Covenant for the purposes of allowing a dock on the Lake Parcel. 69. Defendant and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest did not accurately reflect the : actual purpose of the Restrictive Covenant. 7