Citizens For Covenant Compliance v. Anderson,

906 P.2d 1314 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Anderson (D) owns two adjacent parcels of property in Woodside that were part of a separate subdivisions developed at different times. The Skywood Acres parcel was subject to covenants and restrictions recorded in June 1958. Those covenants and restrictions were explicitly stated to run with the land and to be enforceable by the Subdividers, their grantees or assigns or successors in interest. The Skywood Acres parcel was eventually acquired by D. The second parcel was part of Friars subdivision comprised of four lots. Its covenants and restrictions were recorded in May 1977. That recording explicitly stated that they were mutual equitable covenants and servitudes for the protection and benefit of each property in that subdivision and that they would run with the land. The owners of any of the parcels may enforce those restrictions as well. The portion of the Friars subdivision was sold two days before the CC&R's were recorded and was eventually acquired by D at a foreclosure sale. The original deed refers to the parcel map but not the CC&R's. No other deed in the chain of title refers to the CC&R's. However, the title insurance report for the original buyers shows the CC&R's. D got the two parcels and then entered into a contract to operate a winery. D got permits to grow grapes and to produce wine. D also kept seven Llamas on the property as pets. Ps are an unincorporated association consisting of individual landowners representing both subdivisions formed to enforce the Skywood and Friar CC&R's. The superior court found the CC&R's unenforceable and judgment was entered for D. P appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed; no parcel in either subdivision was conveyed pursuant to an express, written agreement that it was conveyed subject to the general plan of restrictions and as such it was irrelevant whether D had notice of the CC&R's. P contends that they are enforceable as covenants that run with the land or equitable servitudes.