Opinion ID: 1188744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Covenants and Restrictions

Text: Lujan claims that the evidence presented at trial does not support the court's conclusion that the property was conveyed subject to the conditions and covenants of record. We do not agree. The covenants and restrictions were part of the supplement to the January 14, 1975 real estate purchase agreement. Lujan claims that he never agreed to the restrictions, as evidenced by his refusal to sign the supplement. Although Lujan's signature does not appear on the copy of the supplement presented to the court, Lujan did sign the real estate purchase agreement which stated: See Supplement attached hereto for additional provisions. Lujan also initialed various parts of the supplement where changes were made. The memorandum of understanding which Lujan executed previously set forth substantially the same provisions contained in the supplement to which Lujan now objects. On June 9, 1976, Lujan, through his attorney, demanded that PPI perform under the January 14, 1975 agreement. We hold that the evidence supports the finding that on January 14, 1975, Lujan and PPI executed the real estate purchase agreement, together with supplement, and that the agreement superceded all previous agreements. Therefore, the conclusion that the land should be conveyed subject to the conditions and covenants of record is affirmed. This cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. EASLEY, C.J., and PAYNE, J., concur.