The relevant facts of this case are set forth in Judge Bronson’s dissenting opinion. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the defendants were guilty of contempt for violating a 1964 court order entered against them which stated in part:
"Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from enlarging or extending their nonconforming use on their real property, or on the waters of Orchard Lake adjacent thereto, by renting, leasing, storing, anchoring or otherwise permitting the storing or anchoring of power or sail boats in excess of six (6) at any one time.”
The defendants admitted that a "windsurfer” was a sailboat and that they kept approximately ten windsurfers on their property in addition to leasing space for one powerboat and five sailboats. The defendants rented the windsurfers and gave instructions on their use. Thus, considering the fact that the total number of power and sailboats rented, leased, stored or anchored on the defendants’ property exceeded six, we find that the defendants disregarded the 1964 order.
We reject the defendants’ claim that they acted in good faith because they believed that the refer*553ence to sailboats in the 1964 order did not include windsurfers. A belief that the 1964 order did not apply to windsurfers would be unreasonable when, by the defendants’ own admission, a windsurfer is a sailboat. Also, the 1964 order clearly prohibited the defendants from enlarging or extending their nonconforming use. In other words, the order was designed to maintain the status quo. We can only conclude that the defendants knew that they were disobeying the 1964 order when they added the ten windsurfers to the six boats already kept on their property because, by storing and renting the windsurfers, defendants were, in effect, enlarging or expanding their operation of the boat livery in violation of the court’s order. Instead of proceeding to store and rent the windsurfers, the defendants should have requested the trial court to either modify or clarify the 1964 order so that there would be no question that they were not enlarging or extending their nonconforming use.
Moreover, we find that the 1964 order was unambiguous. We disagree with the dissenting opinion’s conclusion that the language of the order suggests that the order did not apply to the storage of the defendants’ own boats on their property. We find that the order unequivocally states that the restrictions contained in the order apply to the storage of the defendants’ own boats as well as to the storage of boats belonging to other persons.
Affirmed.
J. H. Gillis, J. concurred.