Opinion ID: 2456428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Scope of a Restricted District

Text: Provisions in restrictive covenants that the restrictions may be waived or modified by the consent of three-fourths of the lot owners constitute strong evidence that there is a general scheme or plan of development furthered by the restrictive covenants. Armstrong v. Leverone, 105 Conn. 464, 472, 136 A. 71, 74 (1927). The voting rights in the present case clearly attached only to lakefront lots. It was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that the restrictions were meant to apply only to the lakefront lots. The legal question is whether all the tracts in the development must be intended to be subject to the restrictions for the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine to apply to any of the retained lots. We find it immaterial whether the question is phrased as whether the plan may be that some tracts are unrestricted while others are restricted, or whether the plan need only apply to certain similarly situated lots. We hold that the general plan or scheme may be that the restrictions only apply to certain well-defined similarly situated lots for the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative easements to apply as to such lots. Logical extensions of Texas decisions, as well as decisions from sister states, support our conclusion. Texas cases support the conclusion that the restricted area need not be the whole subdivision. The facts in Curlee v. Walker were that after the creation of the Floral Heights Addition in the City of Wichita Falls, the developers set aside 18 blocks to be subject to restrictive covenants for ten years from date of purchase, that the land would be used for residential purposes only, that there would be one residence to two whole lots, and that the cost to construct the residence would be at least $3,000. This court in its opinion referred to the 18 blocks as the restricted district and referred to the plan as [t]his general scheme or plan of creating a restricted residence district. 112 Tex. at 42, 244 S.W. at 497. Thus a general scheme or plan need not apply to the whole tract or subdivision. In Hooper v. Lottman , from which we quoted with approval, the restriction had been that no barns would be constructed within 60 feet of a specific street. The number of feet varied in each deed, so there was no absolute uniformity, but the restricted district to which the plan applied was obviously lots with frontage on that street. Similarly, in upholding the trial court's refusal to enforce restrictive covenants on other grounds, in Canyon v. Ferguson, 190 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex.Civ. App.Fort Worth 1945, no writ), the appellate court wrote it was not essential that there be a general scheme of restricting all of the lots in the additions. Valid restrictions could result from a scheme to restrict the lots in only one block, or those facing on only one street. Likewise, in Crump v. Perryman, 193 S.W.2d 233, 235 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1946, no writ), the court wrote, [W]e know of no rule of law requiring the particular improvement district to embrace an addition in its entirety, citing Curlee. Similar statements concerning the extent of the restricted area appear in Lehmann v. Wallace, 510 S.W.2d 675, 681 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and Cambridge Shores Homeowners Ass'n v. Spring Valley Lodge Co., 422 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1967, no writ). Finally, in a case tried on the implied reciprocal negative easement theory, we expressly approved an opinion that found no error in the jury instruction requiring that the restrictions be substantially uniform, and that they be imposed on substantially all the lots in the restricted area. Bethea v. Lockhart, 127 S.W.2d 1029, 1032 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1939, writ ref'd)(emphasis added). The language from the Texas cases suggesting that the restricted district need not be the whole subdivision is in agreement with decisions from other states. In First Security National Bank & Trust Co. v. Peter, 456 S.W.2d 46 (Ky.Ct.App.1970), the court found a restricted district comprising less than the whole subdivision including most lots that faced a particular street. Even more in point is the Kentucky case of Bellemeade Co. v. Priddle, 503 S.W.2d 734 (Ky.Ct.App.1974). There the owners had platted and recorded sections I, II, III, IV and V of the Bellemeade subdivision. Sections I, II, III and IV had been marketed as restricted to one-family residential uses, but section V was a tract of approximately 12 acres adjacent to a major United States highway, different in character from the other sections. When the plat of section I went to record, there was a contract with the real estate firm marketing the subdivision which gave it the exclusive right to sell residential lots, but there was a separate provision giving those agents the exclusive right to sell, lease or develop section V as multi-family duplex housing, a shopping center and parking area. There was evidence of negotiations about section V with prospective buyers or developers for commercial enterprises both before and after the platting of the subdivision. After reviewing the marketing evidence, the court concluded there was no evidence that any lots in section V were offered for sale for residential purposes or evidence of confusion as to the developers' intent. [1] The court held that the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine applied as to retained lots in sections I through IV, but that section V was not part of the restricted area and could be sold for construction of a proposed Holiday Inn motel. In Weber v. Les Petite Acadamies, Inc., 490 S.W.2d 278 (Mo.App.1973), the original grantor had platted a subdivision composed of Lot A, Lot B, and a large number of numbered lots. All numbered lots sold were conveyed with deeds restricting them to residential purposes. It was conceded there was a common plan or scheme of development, but the owner contended Lots A and B were not part of the restricted area. On summary judgment evidence that the common grantor did not intend Lots A and B to be restricted to residential dwellings and that the character of Lots A and B was totally different from that of the rest of the lots in the subdivision in that Lots A and B were larger, abutted on a busy traffic artery, and were lettered on the plat rather than numbered, the appellate court held that summary judgment was improper because substantial factual questions were raised whether Lots A and B were part of the restricted area. Likewise, in Sharts v. Walters, 107 N.M. 414, 759 P.2d 201 (N.M.App.1988), the owner had platted a Tract A consisting of a 60acre tract and a Tract B consisting of a 15.044 acre tract. All lots in Tract A (except for two acres where there was a preexisting restaurant) had been sold with residential restrictions. The appellate court upheld the trial court finding that Tract B was not burdened by implied reciprocal restrictions, holding that whether Tract B was part of the restricted area under the plan of development was a fact question of what was intended to be covered by the restrictions. The New Mexico court cited the Texas Lehmann v. Wallace case, which we discussed above. Finally, by way of further example, in Duvall v. Ford Leasing Development Corp., 220 Va. 36, 255 S.E.2d 470 (1979), the court held that when a larger tract is subdivided into sections and lots in stages, for purposes of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, each separate recording created a separate and distinct subdivision with its own set of restrictions benefiting and burdening only the land in that particular subdivision. [2] We have concluded that the weight of authority supports our conclusion that the restricted district need not be the whole subdivision nor include the whole retained tract. We have reviewed the record and find there is some evidence to support all trial court findings that were attacked in the court of appeals. Because there were factual sufficiency points raised in the court of appeals upon which that court has not ruled, we remand this cause to the court of appeals for further consideration consistent with this opinion. GONZALEZ, J., notes his dissent. (Opinion to follow). DOGGETT, J., not sitting.