Court Opinion

ID: 9571556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:32:37.745268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:35.139136
License: Public Domain

*1300Rawlings, J.
I respectfully dissent.
Clearly the construction of a dwelling unit on the east 140 feet of Lot 10 would serve to mabe Woodland Avenue the front lot line for any such structure.
No easement is reserved for access to 18th Street (Lot A) across the west 197.14 feet of Lot 10, and there is nothing to indicate this means of access is even contemplated.
Under these circumstances it is self-evident any residential structure built on the east 140 feet of Lot 10 would, of necessity, front on Woodland Avenue. City of Des Moines v. Dorr, 31 Iowa 89, 93; 26 C. J. S., Deeds, section 164(3), page 1117; 20 Am. Jur.2d, Covenants, section 242, page 809; and annotations 30 A. L. R.2d 561.
And since the plat, Exhibit B, discloses the north-south dimension of Lot 10 is only 100 feet, it also becomes evident no divelling could be constructed on this tract without being nearer than 100 feet from Woodland Avenue.
It follows that any house placed on the rear or easterly 140 feet of Lot 10 facing Woodland Avenue would violate building restriction (b) which provides in part: “No building shall be erected on any lot nearer than 100 feet from the front lot line, % * >Y? »
But there is another factor to be considered.
The record is meager but still discloses this area was developed for restricted residential purposes. It also discloses the restriction quoted above is a covenant running with the land for the benefit of all who might build, purchase or occupy homes in the area.
The general building plan discloses an intention to provide for all those acquiring homes in that particular community some reasonable degree of protection for the investment and the right to live in a neighborhood such as was contemplated at time of purchase. 26 C. J. S., Deeds, section 163, page 1094; 20 Am. Jur.2d, Covenants, section 186, page 754; and annotations, 30 A. L. R.2d 560.
I deem the law and the equities to be with plaintiffs and would affirm.
Larson, J., joins in this dissent.