In Powell V

Multiple Choice

In Powell v.Washburn,where Powell sued the developer of a planned community he lived in for changing the covenants,conditions,and restrictions (CC&Rs) to allow recreational vehicles as residences in the development,the Arizona high court held that:

A) enforcing the intent of the parties who established the covenant is the "cardinal principle" in interpreting restrictive covenants
B) restrictive covenants should be reevaluated by the courts "in terms of modern trends"
C) enforcing the intent of the parties who established the covenant is secondary to increasing property values
D) restrictive covenants have no true legal power in Arizona
E) none of the other choices are correct