Houghton v. Rizzo

281 N.E.2d 577 (1972)

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

D caused to be recorded in the appropriate registry of deeds a subdivision plan (plan) dated June 15, 1964, and approved by the planning board. The plan showed proposed ways and thirty-seven numbered lots, all owned by D. D conveyed sixteen of the lots by thirteen separate deeds, all of which were duly recorded. Eleven of the deeds contained identical restrictions which provided as follows: 'Said premises are hereby conveyed subject to the restrictions below set forth, which are hereby imposed on said premises for the exclusive benefit of the Grantors and their successors in trust and of such of their successors in title to the benefitted land, hereinafter described (or to any portion or portions thereof), to whom the exclusive benefit of these restrictions may hereafter be expressly granted of record.' The provisions restricted the use of the lots to single-family residences and requiring approval of construction plans in writing by the grantors or their successors in title. Ps are the present owners of eight of the lots shown on the plan and conveyed by D. Ps were upset that D was going to construct a multi-family apartment building on one of the remaining unsold lots. Ps seek a decree ordering the removal of the partially constructed building and declaring that D's lot is subject to the same restrictions as were included in the deeds by which they previously conveyed other lots on the same plan. Ps argued that it may be inferred from the fact that identical restrictions were imposed on thirteen lots that there was a 'common scheme' as a result of which they obtained 'an enforceable right to have the remaining land of the common grantor within the limits of the common scheme bound by similar restrictions by way of implication.' The judge ruled for Ps and D appealed.