Court Opinion

ID: 9758729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:42:24.90579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:54.386631
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s holding that the lower court’s judgment should be vacated. However, reservations concerning aspects of the majority’s opinion preclude my joining the opinion.
In its opinion, the majority concludes, inter alia, that the lower court erred in holding that subdivision 6 was unenforceable because no successor to the original grantee existed.1 The majority, to the contrary, views the successors as the present owners of lots within the subdivision. In addition, the majority holds that each property owner has a *290dominant estate over that of his neighbor, and therefore, may enforce valid deed restrictions against his neighbor. Finally, the majority limits this right of enforcement to only those owners whose property adjoins or is adjacent to an alleged offending lot. I do not agree with this portion of the majority opinion.
After carefully studying subdivision 4, 5 and 6, the deed restrictions at issue in this case, two observations may be made: (1) the deed restrictions manifest an intent to retain the open and pastoral nature of the land; and (2) certain responsibilities and duties regarding the maintenance of these restrictive covenants were lodged in the “grantee”. It is apparent from the language used, that the grantor planned to have the original grantee, Crestmont Farms Improvement Co., and its successors act as a kind of governing body whose duties would include both monitoring and assisting in adherence to the deed restrictions. The majority, however, ignores the plan and instead places the grantee’s powers in individual land owners. Clearly, this contravenes the grantor’s intent. The following scenarios illustrate the point.
Surely, the majority does not expect a property owner, who wishes to build on his property, to first “submit” plans to be “approved in writing” by his neighbors. Yet under subdivision 6 such approval by the grantee is required.2 Moreover, is it fair to have one’s neighbor have “the right to say and determine which are the front, side and rear lines of any plot,” and have this decision be “final and binding”? Again, this is the grantee’s power under subdivision 4.3
*291Portions of the restrictive covenants at issue clearly contemplate the ongoing existence of some sort of central governing body. Evidence in the court below revealed that Crestmont Farms Improvement Co. no longer existed and, further, that no similar body had been set up in its stead. In the absence of such a governing body, those portions of the deed restrictions dealing with the powers reserved to the grantee are no longer enforceable. Therefore, the approval power contained in subdivision 6 is no longer enforceable. The courts of this Commonwealth have made it clear that they will not write into restrictions, through implication, something not clearly expressed therein. Rat-kovich v. Randell Homes, Inc., 403 Pa. 63, 169 A.2d 65 (1961).
This disposition leaves intact most of the content of many of the deed restrictions. Only those provisions which specifically and exclusively grant powers to the grantee (or its successors) are rendered unenforceable.
One final point. Subdivision 11 of the deed restrictions reads in pertinent part:
The provisions herein contained shall run, bind the land and shall endure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Grantee or the owner of any land included in said tract____
Therefore, contrary to the majority’s view, valid deed restrictions are enforceable by any and all property owners, *292not just those whose property adjoins or is adjacent to an alleged offending lot.

. Crestmont Farms was at one time a large farm which was conveyed on March 5, 1926 by Thomas C. Coale to Crestmont Farms Improvement Co. The property exists now as a subdivision containing seventy residential plots.

. The majority opinion holds at 969 that the character of Crestmont Farms has changed so that subdivision 6, to the extent that it controls fence construction, is obsolete. However, the grantee’s power of approval in subdivision 6 extends to “building(s), fence(s), wall(s) or other structure(s)”.

. The complete text of subdivision 4 provides:
Sub-division 4. No building or part thereof shall be erected or maintained on any part of the said tract closer to any street than 25 feet and at least 15 feet from any side or rear lot line except as hereinafter set forth and except as to eight lots of 50 feet each fronting on Orchard Lane. Covered porches, the floors of which *291are not higher than the level of the first floor of the building may encroach on such restricted areas by projecting not more than 12 feet. Steps, uncovered porches and terraces, no part of which is more than 3 feet above the level of the first floor of the building may be built and maintained on any part of such restricted areas. Single story bar, low and criel windows not more than 15 feet in height (exclusive of foundations or other support) may encroach on such restricted areas by projection no more than 3 feet, but the total horizontal plans area of such encroachments on one side of a detached building shall not exceed 30 square feet. The Grantee shall in all cases have the right to say and determine which are the front side and rear lines of any plot and also that amount of set back from said lines necessary to conform to the requirements hereof and the Grantees judgment and determination thereon shall be final and binding. (Emphasis added.)