Rogers v. Watson

594 A.2d 409 (1991)

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

In 1963, Ds purchased a lot from the Bards. It was the first division of a 200-acre parcel into a residential development. There are no restrictions in this deed. Thereafter, the Bards sold off other parcels, and each deed, except one to the Bards' son and daughter-in-law, contained a covenant similar to the following: No mobile home, trailer, or other similar structure shall be placed or maintained on said premises without the prior approval in writing of the grantor herein or his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns. In 1977, Bard sold to Charles and Hazel Wilkinson a lot adjacent to that owned by Ds. The deed contained the restrictive covenant prohibiting the placement of a mobile home on the land. In 1981, Ds purchased part of this lot from the Wilkinsons. The deed did not mention the restrictive covenant. Because the Wilkinsons were subdividing their land, the transfer required a permit from the Agency of Natural Resources unless deferred because Ds waived development rights. Ds received a deferral after agreeing that they would not construct or erect any structure, 'the useful occupancy of which [would] require the installation of plumbing and sewage treatment facilities' on the lot without first obtaining a permit. The deed contained this restriction. Ds decided to place a mobile home on the lot they had acquired from the Wilkinsons. The Agency denied a permit for a septic system. Ds completed the sewage system but did not connect it within the home. Water was available from Ds' nearby house but was not connected. The mobile home does have heat and electricity. Ds' daughter and son-in-law use the mobile home as their home, but they go to defendants' home for all living needs requiring water or sewage. Ps sued D to enforce the restriction. The trial court found that the restrictive covenant ran with the land, applied to Ds, and could be enforced by Ps. Ds appealed. Ds argue that the trial court erred in granting an injunction because there was no showing that either the benefit or the burden of the restrictive covenant was intended to run with the land.