Vernon Township Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Connor

855 A.2d 873 (2004)

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 a document dated May 15, 1946, entitled 'Restrictions' (Agreement), all of the property owners of the Culbertson Subdivision signed a restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages on their land. The agreement was to be binding upon respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, lessees, tenants and the occupiers of any of said lots, pieces or parcels of land, and is hereby specifically declared to be a covenant running with the lots, pieces or parcels of land held by the respective signers thereof, or in which we, or any of us, have an interest. On July 3, 1997, P purchased a 3.25-acre parcel of land within the Culbertson Subdivision for the purpose of building a new truck room and social hall that would sell alcohol to its patrons. This newly acquired parcel is located approximately 2,000 feet from P's existing truck room and social hall. At the time of purchase, P did not have actual notice of the restrictive covenant banning the sale of alcoholic beverages on the land. P did have constructive notice of the restrictive covenant from a title search that its attorney conducted. P found out about the restriction in November of 1999, well after it had already commenced building the new social hall. There are no establishments within the Culbertson Subdivision that possess liquor licenses. The closest alcohol-serving establishment is D's current social hall, approximately one-half mile from the restricted lots. There are two bars located within two miles of the restricted tract. D stopped construction of the new social hall and sought to have all of the property owners within the restricted tract sign a Limited Release of Restrictions. Sixty-eight of the seventy-seven parcels signed the Limited Release. Three parcels neither signed the release nor sought to enforce the restrictive covenant. The remaining six (D) refused to sign the Limited Release. P brought the instant action at law seeking to quiet title to its parcel. P claimed changed conditions outside the parcels rendered the restriction obsolete. The trial court granted Judgment in favor of D. The court concluded that 'because Ds will realize substantial benefit from the enforcement of this restriction, and because the restriction has not been rendered obsolete by change in the neighborhood, P is not entitled to the relief sought.' The Superior Court reversed the Judgment of the trial court; the presence of three liquor-serving establishments within two miles of the restricted tract did not support D's contention 'that they experience none of the effects of the sale of alcohol.' D appealed.