Any restriction, reservation, condition, exception, or covenant in any subdivision plan, deed, or other instrument of or pertaining to the transfer, sale, lease, or use of property which would permit residential use of property but prohibit the use of the property as a family care home as defined in G.S. 160D-907 is void as against public policy to the extent of the prohibition and shall be given no legal or equitable force or effect. (1981, c. 565, s. 1; 2019-111, s. 2.6(j); 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, ss. 49(a), (c), 51(a), (b), (d).)
Notes of Decisions
Hedingham Cmty. Ass'n v. GLH Builders, Inc., 634 S.E.2d 224 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “§ 168-21 and that consequently, the restrictions asserted by Plaintiff to limit or prohibit such use of the home are “void as against public policy” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-23 . We thus affirm the orders of Judge Croom and Judge Desvousges.”
Smith v. Ass'n for Retarded Citizens for Hous. Dev. Servs., Inc., 331 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Our decision makes it unnecessary for us to address either plaintiffs’ assignments of error relating to the applicability of G.S. §§ 168-23 and -24 to “structural” limitations imposed by restrictive covenants or the constitutionality of the statute as applied to “structural”…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.