Question 46

Yes, because it is not affected by the court order.

If the first provision regarding ownership by unmarried persons is declared invalid, the second provision requiring all units to be used for residential purposes remains in force, as the two provisions are independent of each other.

A) Yes, because it is not affected by the court order.

This option is correct because the two restrictive covenants are separate provisions. The invalidation of one does not inherently affect the validity of the other, allowing the second provision to remain enforceable.

B) Yes, because condominiums may not be used for commercial purposes.

While it's true that condominiums are typically intended for residential use, this option does not address the specific question of whether the second provision remains valid after the first is invalidated. Therefore, it does not provide a strong rationale for maintaining the second covenant's validity.

C) No, because once one provision is invalidated, the rest automatically become invalid.

This option is incorrect as it misrepresents how covenants operate. The invalidation of one restrictive covenant does not automatically invalidate others unless they are interdependent, which is not the case here.

D) No, because the developer must first receive the agreement of all affected parties before the second provision becomes valid again.

This option is also incorrect. The second provision does not require the agreement of all affected parties to remain valid once the first provision is invalidated. Each provision stands on its own.

Conclusion

The first provision's invalidation does not impact the enforceability of the second, independent provision. As such, Option A is definitively correct, while the other options fail to accurately address the relationship between the provisions or misinterpret the implications of the court's decision.