Opinion ID: 2428853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ReplatRestrictive Covenant

Text: The Ingrams first argue that the chancellor erred in holding that they could not replat their lot and that they were governed by the restrictive covenant. In finding for the plaintiffs/appellees, the chancellor relied on Constant v. Hodges, 292 Ark. 439, 730 S.W.2d 892 (1987). In Constant the appellants attempted to subdivide a 1.73 acre lot in Robinwood Subdivision in Little Rock. The Bill of Assurance provided that the land would be restricted to single-family residences since the bill's purpose was to carry out a general plan to develop said lands as a high-class suburban residential property. Constant, 292 Ark. at 441, 730 S.W.2d at 893. The chancellor found that a general plan of development existed in Robinwood and that, accordingly, the restrictive covenant was enforceable. In making his decision, the chancellor noted a few characteristics of the area: The character and nature of the Robinwood Subdivision referred to in the Bill of Assurance signed by Cecil Gibson and Vera Gibson has been and is single-family residences consisting of very valuable, large homes on large lots. The nature of the neighborhood and this pattern of development have not changed since the lands described in the Bill of Assurance were developed beginning in 1949, and this pattern has continued through the present time. Although there may have been some violations (as alleged by defendants) of some of the provisions of the Bill of Assurance or some of the restrictions contained in deeds subsequently conveying lands subject to the Bill of Assurance, those violations have been minor and they have not destroyed the purpose of the Bill of Assurance or deed restrictions and these violations have not adversely affected the adjoining property owners. Constant, 292 Ark. at 443, 730 S.W.2d at 894 ( emphasis added ). The chancellor looked at the character and nature of the neighborhood, the continuity of the pattern of development and whether any major violation of the purpose of the Bill of Assurance had occurred. This court agreed with the chancellor and affirmed his decision. Id. Applying this test to the facts before us brings the same result. First of all, the permitted violation of the purpose of the Bills of Assurance, although major, was temporary. While it is true that the Wirts and Henleys gave the Ingrams permission to move a second house onto Lot 3 in 1975, this permission was of limited duration. Testimony at trial revealed that the Wirts and Henleys gave their permission only in order for the Ingrams to care for their ailing mother who was up in years and unable to care for herself. Once Mrs. Rea passed away, Mrs. Ingram's daughter and son moved into Mrs. Rea's home. Mrs. Henley testified that her family's reason for not complaining at that point was: Mrs. Ingram's daughter and her son moved into the house. We talked about talking to the Ingrams, but Mrs. Ingram's daughter had cancer, so we didn't say anything. We felt that she needed to be there close to her mother. She got sicker and she moved back in with her mother and dad in the back of the property. Then it was a rent house for a short time. And we had discussed very definitely that we were going to have to take action about the renters because we could not tolerate the noise. About that time the kids that rented the house moved and the house burned. So we still had hopes that, perhaps, Roy would keep it to have the space or that he would sell it to Mr. Wirt. . . . . I think our expectations were that Mr. and Mrs. Ingram would ... their children would move away and then it would be a couple there as there is at Mr. Wirt's house and mine. It hasn't worked like that. There are lots of people that live in one house with lots of traffic and now it's moved to the front, to Kellogg, and now it's going to be more traffic. Clearly, the Wirts and Henleys gave their permission for placement of the second house on Lot 3 only in order to help their neighbors take care of an ailing family member. Once Mrs. Rea passed away and her home burned down, Lot 3 contained one family residence and was in compliance with its Bill of Assurance. Lot 3 was then in keeping with the common scheme of development in Kellogg Addition. The Ingrams also argue that there were other violations proven at the trial. We disagree. For example, the Ingrams contend that Lots 12 and 13 of Block 5, which originally were governed by the same restrictive covenant as Lot 3, were transformed into a subdivision containing approximately thirty lots. These lots now have about twenty five to thirty homes on them. While these two lots are only four lots away from the Henley's property, the original Bill of Assurance for Lots 12 and 13 lists them as being in Sylvan Acres not Kellogg Addition. Thus, these lots are simply not part of the Kellogg Addition. The fact that Metropolitan Trust was a common developer of both subdivisions is of no moment. After examining the Bills of Assurance provided in the exhibits and noting the same restrictive covenant in all of them, it is easy to see how the Chancellor arrived at the decision that there was a general scheme of development in this area. The primary test for the existence of a general plan of development is whether substantially common restrictions apply to all lots of like character or similarly situated. Jones v. Cook, 271 Ark. 870, 611 S.W.2d 506 (1981). For their next arguments on appeal, the Ingrams claim that the trial court erred in refusing to hold that either waiver or unclean hands defeat the restrictive covenant. These arguments have no merit.