Ricardo and Tiffany Grave de Peralta own a home in the Blackberry Mountain neighborhood in Gilmer County, and they occasionally rent their home to others for a few days at a time. The Blackberry Mountain Association, Inc., an association of homeowners in the neighborhood, does not approve of rentals for a term so short,1 and it sued the Grave de Peraltas, seeking a declaratory judgment that the neighborhood covenants prohibit such rentals, as well as injunctive relief. The Grave de Peraltas moved for summary judgment, arguing that the relevant provision of the covenants does not apply to them and, in any event, does not prohibit rentals, even for only a few days at a time. The court below denied that motion, and the Grave de Peraltas appeal.2 We conclude that the covenants cannot reasonably be construed to prohibit the Grave de Peraltas from renting their home for a few days at a time, and for this reason, we reverse the judgment below. The Association and the Grave de Peraltas agree that Section 6.01 of the Blackberry Mountain covenants —specifically the fourth sentence of that section, which is italicized below —governs their dispute: Section 6.01 —Use of Parcels by Owners and Guests . Except for the transitory and restricted use by guests of Owners, as limited below or by the Association through the Blackberry Mountain Rules, the use of each Parcel, whether or not improved by a residence or other structure, and the use of any Common Area by the Owner or Owners of any Parcel, shall be limited to twelve 12 persons at a time regardless of the number of owners of record of the Parcel. Such twelve 12 persons shall include married or unmarried adults and all minor children of such family or families. Should fee title ownership be taken by legal entity or more than twelve 12 persons, at the time of the original sale or transfer thereof, the fee title owners shall designate in writing the persons, not to exceed twelve 12, who shall have the right to use the owned Parcel or any Common Area and who shall have any right to use any portion of the property as Owners. The holder or holders of legal title shall designate in writing the names of persons entitled to use, whether by lease, agreement, or otherwise, the Parcel and Common Areas under this provision; and such designation shall not be changed more than three 3 times in any one calendar year without the express consent of the Association. Subject to Blackberry Mountain Rules from time to time in effect respecting the number of guests permitted for special occasions or by special permit of the Association and limitations on the use of Common Areas or facilities by guests, including denial of entrance or other privileges of guests who have abused or violated said Blackberry Mountain Rules, the maximum number of guests present on Blackberry Mountain at any one time by virtue of permission of all the Owners of any one Parcel shall not exceed twenty 20 persons; i.e., the total number of guests allowed on Blackberry Mountain at any one time or day shall not exceed twenty 20 persons for any one Parcel. The acts or omissions of any guests shall be deemed the acts or omissions of the Owner or Owners at whose invitation said guests are present to the end that such Owner shall be fully responsible for any violation of the Blackberry Mountain Rules or of this Declaration or of law committed by such guest. Emphasis supplied. The Association contends that, under the fourth sentence of Section 6.01, the Grave de Peraltas must designate all persons, including renters, entitled to use their home, and that designation cannot be changed more than three times each year without leave of the Association. Consequently, the Association reasons, the Grave de Peraltas cannot rent their home to others for a term of less than four months without its consent because, if they did, they would have to change their designation more frequently. The Grave de Peraltas contend, on the other hand, that the fourth sentence of Section 6.01 applies only to those parcels described in its third sentence —parcels owned by an entity or group of twelve or more persons —and in any event does not prohibit rentals for a few days at a time.
We begin with the settled principles that inform any interpretation of covenants restricting the use of land. Generally speaking, “restrictive covenants will be construed to carry out the intention of the parties.” Westpark Walk Owners v. Stewart Holdings , 288 Ga. App. 633, 636 2 655 SE2d 254 2007. When a covenant is clear and unambiguous, it is attributed its plain meaning. See Lake Arrowhead Property Owners Assn. v. Dalton , 257 Ga. App. 655, 656 572 SE2d 25 2002. When the covenant is less clear, a court must attempt to ascertain its intent from an examination of the entire document in which the covenant is found. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Statham , 243 Ga. 448, 449 254 SE2d 833 1979. “If the manifest intent of the parties can be ascertained from the covenants as a whole, no ambiguity exists,” and there is no need for judicial construction. Westpark , 288 Ga. App. at 636 2. But if the intent of the parties cannot be discerned from the document as a whole, any ambiguity must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner, Douglas v. Wages , 271 Ga. 616, 617 1 523 SE2d 330 1999, inasmuch as “restrictions on private property are generally not favored in Georgia,” Canterbury Forest Assn. v. Collins , 243 Ga. App. 425, 427 1 532 SE2d 736 2000, and generally speaking, an owner of land has the right to use it for “any lawful purpose.” Holbrook v. Davison , 258 Ga. 844, 845 1 375 SE2d 840 1989. Thus, “restrictions upon an owner’s use of land must be clearly established,” id., and covenants restricting the use of real property may not be enlarged or extended by judicial construction. Lake Arrowhead , 257 Ga. App.at 656 572 SE2d 25 2002. See also England v. Atkinson , 196 Ga. 181, 184 1 26 SE2d 431 1943 “When it is sought to restrict one in the use of his own private property for any lawful purpose, the ground for such interference must be clear and indubitable. The word indubitable in its literal sense means without doubt.” citation and punctuation omitted; King v. Baker , 214 Ga. App. 229, 235 5 447 SE2d 129 1994 “A covenant plainly expressed cannot be broadened by parol proof of a covenantor.” citation omitted.
