Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
The area consists of thirty-one numbered lots. D purchased Lot 31 for $ 6000 by contract dated July 14, 1950. The lot contains 8.2 acres and has a dwelling house on it. The other lots vary in size but are much smaller than 31, although considerably larger than the average city lot. D did grading, built a road, and otherwise improved the land as a site for an auto trailer court they planned to operate from their dwelling. Ps are twenty-one owners of most of the other lots in the plat. Ps sued D to enforce the residential restriction contained in D’s deed. D called attention to the 1920 advertisement for the subdivision which only had 30 lots advertised. D argues that it was not intended that building restrictions apply to Lot 31. But, the ad contained a large reproduction of the plat showing the thirty-one numbered lots and the printed matter stated they are as large as '25 city lots each.' The ad clearly implied the entire plat was for homesites. It was clear from the chain of title that the original deed to D’s lot was restricted to private residential purposes. It is unimportant that the deed to D contains no restrictions provided D had notice of the restrictions in their chain of title. D also argued that the neighborhood had changed and that the restriction should be terminated. D also showed that one resident raised and sold dogs out of his lot and that the railroad that ran alongside his property had been abandoned. The court upheld the restrictive covenant and D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co