19. A condominium developer has two restrictive covenants in the declaration of restrictions. One is that all units be owned by unmarried persons, and the other is all units must be used for residential purposes. If the first provision is declared invalid by court order, will the second remain in force?
Answer: A
Yes, because it is not affected by the court order.
The second provision regarding the requirement that all units must be used for residential purposes remains in force because it is independent of the first provision, which was declared invalid. The validity of one covenant does not automatically invalidate another unless they are inherently linked.
A) Yes, because it is not affected by the court order.
This option is correct as the second provision regarding residential use is not dependent on the first provision about ownership. Since the two covenants serve different purposes and address different aspects, the invalidation of one does not impact the validity of the other.
B) Yes, because condominiums may not be used for commercial purposes.
While this statement is true in general, it does not directly address the relationship between the two covenants. The reason the second provision remains valid is not solely because condominiums cannot be used for commercial purposes, but rather because it is an independent rule that stands on its own.
C) No, because once one provision is invalidated, the rest automatically become invalid.
This option is incorrect as it misinterprets the nature of restrictive covenants. The invalidation of one provision does not lead to the automatic invalidation of others unless they are explicitly linked or contingent upon one another, 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 developer to seek agreement from affected parties for it to remain valid. The court's declaration only affects the first provision, allowing the second to continue in force independently.
Conclusion
The correct answer is A, as it highlights the independence of the second covenant from the first. All other options fail because they either misinterpret the legal standing of the covenants or introduce irrelevant requirements that do not apply in this situation. Thus, the second provision regarding residential use remains enforceable.