Opinion ID: 1867197
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Restrictive Covenants

Text: The trial court also held that the proposed use of the property by the Chamber would violate existing restrictive covenants in effect in the Meadowbrook subdivision. However, when a municipality acquires land that is subject to an enforceable covenant, the condemning authority acquires the land free from the burden of the covenant. 5 Powell on Real Property, § 679(4) (1987). That rule was adopted by this Court in Burma Hills Development Co. v. Marr, 285 Ala. 141, 145, 229 So.2d 776, 779 (1969): `It has been argued that such restrictions were not intended to apply as against public improvements;that, since all property is held subject to the power of eminent domain the rights of the condemnor are impliedly excepted from the operation of the restrictive covenant. `It has further been held that such restrictions could not possibly inhibit the action of the sovereign because any such attempt would be void as against public policy since they constitute an attempt to prohibit the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain.' (Quoting 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 5.73) (1985). In this case the City has not deeded the property to the Chamber, and the lease is a proper exercise of the authority given the City under § 11-47-21. Therefore, any attempt to enforce the covenants, under the facts of this case, would be an intrusion on the City's exercise of its statutory power. A different result might follow if the City had sold the property to the Chamber. However, since the City has retained title to the property, we need not speculate on that possibility. For the reasons stated above, the trial court erred on this issue also. After reviewing the record, this Court finds the 1988 lease between the City and the Chamber to be valid. Therefore, the Chamber's contention that the trial judge improperly denied its motion that he recuse himself need not be addressed. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded with instructions to the trial court to reinstate the lease and vacate its order enjoining the Chamber from building its proposed office building on the subject property. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.