A subdivision was created out of property and that subdivision had a number of restrictive covenants: (1) business and commercial enterprises were prohibited; (2) residential use with one residence per lot, and (3) the restriction could be changed by 3/4 of the property owners according to the front footage holdings on the 715 contour line. The devisees of the original owners contracted to sell some of the lots to Pollock (D) for the purpose of building a marina, private club, and condominium development. Evans (P) and other lot owners sued for equitable relief under the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine. The trial court held the original subdividers intended all the lots to have the same restrictions. The appeals court reversed holding that none of the lots were restricted as there must have been an intent that the entire subdivision be similarly restricted.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.