Court Opinion

ID: 9686201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:33:32.613598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:15.932280
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(specially concurring).
An examination of SDCL Ch. 43-12 dealing with real property covenants and Chapter 43-13 dealing with easements and servi-tudes convinces me that this case is controlled by:
SDCL 43-12-2. Classification of covenants running with land. The only covenants which run with the land are:
(1) Those made for the direct benefit of the property or some part of it, then in existencef.]
Therefore, if this covenant against motels, mobile homes and recreational vehicle stores was not made for the direct benefit of existing property, or some part of it, it should be declared unenforceable. In other words, this case should be affirmed, not reversed, unless summary judgment was improperly granted.
This covenant contained in this contract for deed does appear, on its face, to be for the direct benefit of the property then in existence, but the benefited property was not described in the contract for deed itself. In my opinion, the statute does not require the benefited property to be described in the contract for deed, it only requires that it exist. If the benefited property does not exist, then the covenant was personal and is unenforceable under South Dakota law.
Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a factual determination, because the trial court did not have sufficient evidence before it to decide this question. There*189fore, summary judgment was not proper in this equitable action.
The majority opinion leaves too many unanswered questions for too long a time. By reversing without remanding to resolve this issue, the majority is leaving Hyde, and Liebelts for that matter, in a position of uncertainty regarding the status of the property. Deferring this determination, as suggested by the majority, may cause Hyde to “sell” and his subsequent grantee to “buy,” a “lawsuit.” The potential buyer, described as an adjacent motel owner, may refuse to purchase without knowing whether the restriction in the contract for deed constitutes a restraint upon the use of the property. Surely this issue represents a “justiciable controversy” between the parties under South Dakota declaratory judgment law. See: SDCL 21-24-1. Therefore, they are entitled to a reasonably prompt and final determination of their case.