Court Opinion

ID: 9574876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:09:12.041376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:02.102388
License: Public Domain

Cochran, J.,
dissenting.
I do not agree that an implied reciprocal negative easement has been established in this case. The property in question was not included in the “Description” found on the Overstreet Plat of Jefferson Manor Subdivision. Therefore, we are not dealing with the omission of restrictive covenants from a deed to a numbered lot in this subdivision, where the intent to apply such covenants to all numbered lots may be implied. The subdivider reserved an unnumbered lot adjoining the subdivision, and there is at least as strong an implication that there was a deliberate exclusion of this property from subdivision restrictions as that there was an intent to make the property subject to the restrictions.
Nor do I find sufficient evidence of notice. A title examiner could no more determine, from the land records, the probability of applica*144tion of restrictive easements to this property than he could determine title by adverse possession. To hold that implied reciprocal negative easements apply to the subject property is to impose an intolerable burden on the title examiner which, in my view, cannot be justified. I regard the majority opinion as an extension of principles enunciated in Minner v. City of Lynchburg, 204 Va. 180, 129 S.E.2d 673 (1963), which I am unwilling to approve.