As to the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the court finds that restrictive covenants four and five are covenants that are purely personal, and are not real covenants that run with and bind the land. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is allowed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, to the extent that this order is a judicial determination that Restrictive Covenants 4 and 5 are personal covenants that do not run with the land. The plaintiff's motion is denied, and the defendants' motion is allowed, to the extent that this order is a judicial determination that the plaintiff is bound by the personal covenants four and five. Plaintiff appeals from the order allowing in part and denying in part its motion for summary judgment and defendants appeal from the portion of the order allowing in part and denying in part their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that the trial court correctly held that covenants four and five were not real covenants which ran with the land, but that the court erred when it held that restrictive covenants four and five were personal covenants binding plaintiff.
Defendants argue that the covenants are real covenants which run with the land.
114 N.C. App. The Court held that so long as restrictions imposed by a land owner are not contrary to public policy, the land owner may sell the land subject to any restrictions he wishes to impose. The restrictions or covenants are either real covenants which run with the land or personal covenants. 38 N.C. App. Plaintiff contends that although the intent of the parties is that the covenants run with the land, that this is not enough because the other two requirements are not met.