Opinion ID: 1768533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propositions of Law 1, 2, and 3 (Assignments of Error I, IV, V, VI, and VII)

Text: There then follows an argument, but nowhere in the argument is any specific assignment of error mentioned. Clearly all of the above assignments are argued in bulk. Assignment of error I is to the effect that the court erred in holding Ordinance 398-G to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Assignment of error IV asserts that the court erred in enjoining the City of Birmingham from issuing a building permit or authority to improve the subject property under the authority of Ordinance 398-G. Assignment of error V asserts error in that portion of the decree enjoining the respondents Union Oil Company and Wilbur Allen from erecting improvements on the subject property which are not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Birmingham, and from violating the restrictions contained in the deed from the Birmingham Realty Company and from erecting any improvements on Lot 1, Block 1, other than detached residences. Assignment of error VI asserts error on the part of the court in rendering a decree in favor of the complainants and against the respondents. Assignment of error VII asserts the court erred in decreeing that Ordinance 398-G was invalid and void. The thrust of appellants' argument under Division A can only be interpreted as questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's decree as a whole, or some aspect of it. Counsel for appellants set forth the principle well established in our decisions that if the question of zoning or rezoning is fairly debatable, a court will not substitute its judgment for that of the municipal government body acting in legislative capacity. See Episcopal Foundation of Jefferson County v. Williams et al., 281 Ala. 363, 202 So.2d 726; Waters v. City of Birmingham, 282 Ala. 104, 209 So.2d 388. However, the right of a governing body to enact zoning ordinances is not unlimited, and the ordinance must bear some substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, and general convenience. Grayson v. City of Birmingham, 277 Ala. 522, 173 So.2d 67; Marshall v. City of Mobile, 250 Ala. 646, 35 So.2d 553. Counsel, in the course of argument under this section of appellants' brief, lists in eleven paragraphs relevant facts which they assert stand without dispute. These undisputed facts so listed are not determinative as to whether the court's finding that the act of the City Council was arbitrary and capricious. Counsel assert that a review of the evidence as a whole   shows that a rezoning of the property    for business use was clearly justified and that the property should have been so zoned. Counsel then observes that this contention will be disputed by the appellees, which of course was done in appellees' brief. The finding of the court that the action of the City Council was arbitrary and capricious in passing Ordinance 398-G, and in decreeing the ordinance invalid, depends upon the sufficiency of the facts established in the court below, and the application of the developed legal doctrines to these facts. Counsel for appellee have streneously brought to our attention the proposition that while counsel for appellants have sought to question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree, there is no condensed recital of the evidence given by each witness in narrative form bearing on the points in issue so as to fully present the testimony of the witness clearly and concisely. Such recitation of the testimony of each witness is necessary where the sufficiency of the evidence to support a decree or judgment is the basis of an assignment of error. Supreme Court Rule 9. By this omission the appellants have waived their assignments going to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree and the finding that the action of the City Council in passing Ordinance 398-G was capricious and arbitrary, and decreeing the ordinance to be invalid. (See Employers Insurance Co. of Alabama v. Watkins, 280 Ala. 681, 198 So.2d 258, for a full discussion, with numerous authorities cited as to the consequences of failing to comply with Supreme Court Rule 9, where the testimony of each witness is not set forth in narrative form in the Statement of Facts in brief, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a decree is assigned as error.) We perforce pretermit consideration of the assignments of error sought to be argued under Subdivision A of appellants' brief. Under Division C of the argument portion of their brief counsel for appellants have listed Propositions of Law 7 and 8, and beneath have parenthetically listed Assignments of Error III, V, and VI. Assignment of error III asserts that the court erred in decreeing that the restriction contained in the deed from Birmingham Realty Company to Mary A. T. McGeever conveying Lot 1, Block 1 of their Chestnut Hills development was a covenant running with Lot 1 and inuring to the benefit of the appellees and other owners of lots within the subdivision. Assignments of error V and VI, set out above are peripheral to and sufficiently related to assignment of error III to permit an argument in bulk as to these assignments. Counsel for appellant first analyze and dissect sentence by sentence the restrictive agreement in the McGeever deed, other than the last clause, and reach the conclusion that the restrictive agreement constituted nothing more than a personal covenant between the Birmingham Realty Company and Mary A. T. McGeever, and was obviously intended solely for the benefit of the Birmingham Realty Company. Such argument overlooks the clear import of the last clause of the restrictive covenant that nothing but detached residences may be built on the property herein conveyed. (Lot 1, Block 1, etc.) Counsel further argue that the absence of such words or phrases in the covenant as perpetual, always, heirs and assigns, and running with the land, reinforces their contention that the restrictive covenant was not one running with the land. This contention finds no support in our cases. The paramount factor in determining whether a covenant is one running with the land is the intent of the parties. White v. Harrison, 202 Ala. 623, 81 So. 565; Webb v. Jones, 163 Ala. 637, 50 So. 887. In determining this a court first looks to the instrument, and if this intent be not clear from the face of the instrument, the court will look to surrounding circumstances. Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board of City of Montgomery v. Campbell, 267 Ala. 561, 103 So.2d 165; Moseby v. Roche, 233 Ala. 280, 171 So. 351; Morris & Morris v. Tuskaloosa Mfg. Co., 83 Ala. 565, 3 So. 689. In McMahon v. Williams, 79 Ala. 288, it is stated: One of the most practical tests, supported by common sense and common business experience, is, whether the restriction imposed by the grantor or proprietor upon the granted premises would naturally operate to enhance the value of his adjacent premises, whether retained by him or conveyed to another. If this be so, it is a strong circumstance to indicate that the restriction was not intended for the mere personal benefit of the grantor, but as a permanent servitude beneficial to the owner of the land, whoever he may be, and appendant to the premises. In Webb v. Jones, supra, the observation is made that: If the provision was reserved for the benefit of the adjacent land retained, and not merely for personal advantage, covenants are said to touch and concern. (the land) A restriction having attached and become appendant to the land, it runs with the land automatically whether such words as heirs and assigns, perpetual, running with the land, be used or not used. The background of the Birmingham Realty Company's development of Chestnut Hills dictates the conclusion that the restriction placed in the McGeever deed that only a detached residence could be built on Lot 1, was not intended for the mere personal benefit of the grantor, but as a permanent servitude beneficial to the owner of the land, whoever it might be. Further, such restriction was of a nature to operate as an inducement to purchasers seeking a purely residential lot. We hold that the restrictive covenant in the McGeever deed was a covenant running with Lot 1, and the lower court was correct in so concluding. It is also firmly established by our decisions that where the owner of a tract of land adopts a general scheme for its development, divides it into lots, and conveys the lots with restrictions as to use, such restrictions create equitable easements in favor of the owners of the several lots which may be enforced in equity by any one of such owners. Hall v. Gulledge, 274 Ala. 105, 145 So.2d 794; Pugh v. Whittle, 240 Ala. 503, 199 So. 851; Scheuer v. Britt, 218 Ala. 270, 118 So. 658; McMahon v. Williams, 79 Ala. 288. The instrument executed by the Birmingham Realty Company in 1964, some 37 years after it had parted with title, purporting to dispense with and eliminate the restrictions in the McGeever deed, was of course of no legal effect. Thrasher v. Bear, 239 Ala. 438, 195 So. 441; Virgin v. Garrett, 233 Ala. 34, 169 So. 711. An additional reason compelling a conclusion that Ordinance 398-G is invalid insofar as Lot 1 is concerned, is presented in a constitutional aspect. The restrictive covenant in the original deed from the Birmingham Realty Company to Mary A. T. McGeever was a matter of contract between the grantor and grantee. It is our conclusion as shown above, that the contract between the parties created a covenant running with the land. The obligation of this contract cannot be impaired by a law enacted by the state. Article 1, Sec. 10, Constitution of the United States; Article 1, Sec. 21, Constitution of Alabama 1901. For a full discussion of this principle see Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 17 U.S. 518, 4 L.Ed. 629. A municipality being a creature of the state cannot be deemed to have and exercise more power in the legislative field than does its creator. Town of Boaz v. Jenkins et al., 32 Ala.App. 299, 25 So.2d 394. Indeed, Article XXVIII (Interpretation of Chapter) of the General Zoning Ordinance of the City of Birmingham, reflects this principle in the following provisions in said Article: In interpretating and applying the provisions of this Chapter they shall be held to be minimum requirements   Where any easements, covenants, or agreements impose greater restrictions upon the use of a building or upon the height, bulk, or size of a building    than are required under the regulations of this Chapter, such provisions shall govern. (Emphasis ours.) Counsel for appellants next argue that even though the restrictions in the deed of Birmingham Realty Company to Mrs. McGeever be deemed a covenant running with the land, such covenant should not be enforced because of the change in the character of the neighborhood. Counsel alludes to the heavy traffic on Clairmont Avenue since 1927, with the accompanying increase in noise resulting therefrom, all of which now tend to make Lot 1 undesirable as a residential lot. In a multitude of cases from other jurisdictions this change in the character of a neighborhood as a basis for not enforcing a covenant limiting the use of a lot has been considered. In many of these cases relief from the covenant has been granted under the particular facts presented. See 4 A.L.R.2d 1111; 85 A.L.R. 985, 54 A.L.R. 813. An apt statement of the standards to be applied by a court when presented with such question is set forth in Taylor Avenue Improvement Ass'n v. Detroit Trust Company, 283 Mich. 304, 278 N.W. 75, as follows: Relief from very onerous restrictions because of a change in the character of the neighborhood will be granted only if it can be done without causing any damage to others who have purchased their property in the restricted area in reliance on the restrictions. We have neither the disposition nor the right to lift or modify restrictions at the expense of, or to the damage of, any other property holder in the subdivision. The query is, whether these restrictions can be modified in such a manner so that in this particular instance no damage is done to the residents of Taylor Avenue. While if the question of zoning or rezoning is fairly debatable, a court will not substitute its judgment for that of a municipal governing body acting in a legislative capacity, we consider that the question of whether a covenant running with the land shall be declared unenforcible because of change in the character of the neighborhood to be a question of law to be judicially resolved, and not a legislative matter committed largely to the legislative wisdom of a governing body. Implicit in the Chancellor's decree is an adjudication that the character of Chestnut Hills subdivision had not changed to an extent justifying nonenforcement of the covenant running with Lot 1. In support of this conclusion, counsel for appellees point out that from 1913, when first developed, Chestnut Hills has kept its residential character with no commercial development. As late as 1962, Birmingham Realty Company was still selling lots with residential use covenants. The covenants in deeds to many of the lots sold limited their use to residences. Such restrictions were beneficial to the Realty Company because it induced the sale of other lots in the subdivision, and likewise beneficial to the grantee of such lots because it insured the maintenance of the residential character of the subdivision. The restrictions were for the benefit of all of the owners of lots in Chestnut Hills, which include the appellees singularly and collectively. On appeal a decree in an equity case based upon evidence heard in open court is presumed, as to a question of fact, to be correct and will not be set aside unless palpably erroneous. Coleman v. Estes, 281 Ala. 234, 201 So.2d 391. Even without resort to this presumption of correctness, we can find no basis for concluding that the Chancellor was not correct in decreeing that the restrictive covenant in the Birmingham Realty Company's deed to Mary A. T. McGeever to Lot 1 was a covenant running with the land which had not lost its viability because of any change in the character of Chestnut Hills, and was enforcible in equity by any of the owners of lots in the Chestnut Hills subdivision. The decree below is due to be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, MERRILL and MADDOX, JJ., concur.