amendment, or upon the commencement of the next 10-year automatic extension period. We conclude that the trial court erred by determining that the amendment took immediate effect. In reviewing the language of restrictive covenants, this Court recognizes that “[b]uilding and use restrictions in residential deeds are favored by public policy.” Rofe v Robinson (On Second Remand), 126 Mich App 151, 157; 336 NW2d 778 (1983). Judicial policy requires that we seek to protect property values as well as “aesthetic characteristics considered to be essential constituents of a family environment.” Webb v Smith (After Second Remand), 224 Mich App 203, 211; 568 NW2d 378 (1997), quoting Rofe, 126 Mich App at 157 (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court summarized the general rules for co (<HOLDING>). If, however, every then lot owner voted to
holding that a second extended term cannot be imposed on an offense occurring before the imposition of the first extended term under njsa 2c445b1 holding that restrictive covenants were extended for automatic 10year extension when the attempted amendment oc curred two days after the original term expired holding that amendments of the restrictive covenants passed during the initial 20year term would not take effect until the beginning of the automatic 10year extension period holding that an amendment of restrictive covenants passed during the running of an automatic 10year extension period was not effective until the end of the 10year extension period holding that an amendment passed two years into a 10year automatic extension period was not effective until the 10year extension period expired and stating that to hold otherwise would render the extension provision meaningless