Court Opinion

ID: 9849679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:44:15.527112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:23.669503
License: Public Domain

Brock, J.,
dissenting:
The appealing defendants have no objection to a sanctuary and related buildings being constructed in the subdivision. Their concern is the destruction of the protection of the restrictive covenants on the remaining lots held by Mrs. Fox. Also they are concerned that if the restrictive covenants do not apply to the lots purchased by plaintiff, then plaintiff is free to reconvey the property for commercial or other purposes.
From an equitable point of view the plaintiff stands to lose nothing by having the restrictive covenants imposed upon its lots; it could have relief from Mrs. Fox upon her warranty of title. On the other hand the appealing defendants will lose the entire benefit of a residential development if the covenants are not imposed, and they have no redress against anyone.
Also it does not seem equitable for Mrs. Fox to lead the appealing defendants into purchasing these lots upon the promise of a restricted residential subdevelopment (and more than likely at inflated prices because of the restrictive covenants); then later convey lots to plaintiff without including the covenants in the deed; and then sit back as a nominal party defendant to watch plaintiff erase for her the restrictions she had imposed, thus releasing the remainder of her lots to be sold for whatever purpose she desires.
However, the case cannot be decided on the equities; it must be decided upon principles that will not unduly restrict free alienation and which can be uniformly applied to conveyances of real estate. For this purpose I agree with the majority that the opinion in Reed v. Elmore, 246 N.C. 221, 98 S.E. 2d 360, requires a purchaser of real property in North Carolina to examine all recorded “out” conveyances made by prior record title holders during the periods that they *626respectively held title to the property, to determine if any such owner had expressly imposed a restriction upon the use of the property.
It is upon the question of whether there is an express imposition of restrictions that I disagree with the majority. Without engaging in a point by point argument with the reasoning by which the majority arrived at the conclusion that the deeds to the appealing defendants gave no specific notice of the application of the restrictive covenants to the remaining lots (except 7 and 8) in the subdivision, I will merely state that in my opinion the deeds to the appealing defendants do show an express imposition of the restrictive covenants on all the lots in the subdivision (except 7 and 8).
The majority opinion sets out portions of the restrictive covenants, but for a full understanding of the nature of the residential subdivision which the appealing defendants desire to protect it is helpful to view all of the restrictive covenants contained in the deeds from Mrs. Fox to the appealing defendants. Therefore they are set out in full below, with emphasis added at points which to me most clearly expressly impose the restrictions upon all of the lots in the subdivision (except 7 and 8).
“This property is sold subject to the following restrictions:
“1. The property shall be used for residential purposes only, and no buildings other than one residence, except garages or outhouses for domestic purposes, shall be built on a lot as shown in Plat Book 31, Page 27.
“2. No shop, store, factory, or place of public resort, or business house of any kind shall be erected, or suffered or licensed to exist on the property above-described and no hospital, asylum or institution of like or kindred nature shall be erected or suffered or licensed to exist on the property above-described.
“3. That not more than a one-family unit shall be constructed upon a lot, and that each dwelling so constructed shall consist of a minimum of fifteen hundred (1500) square feet exterior measurement of contiguous enclosed living area.
“4. No residence or building of any kind erected on the property shall be nearer the front property line on any street than thirty (30) feet, nor nearer than ten (10) feet of the side property lines of a ‘building lot’ provided this section shall not apply to garages and outhouses which are erected in the rear of the residence or dwelling.
“5. That no privy shall be constructed or kept on the land *627hereby conveyed, or no swine, chickens or cows shall be kept on the premises, and no nuisance of any kind shall be maintained or allowed thereon, nor use made thereof or permitted which shall be noxious or dangerous to health.
“6. That no signs or billboards of any description shall be displayed on the property with the exception of signs ‘For Rent’ and ‘For Sale’, which signs shall not exceed 2x3 feet in size.
“7. That the above restrictive covenants shall not apply to lots 7 and 8 as shown on the plat referred to, being recorded in Plat Book 31, at Page 27, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Durham County.”
These deeds were recorded before plaintiff purchased its lots, therefore they constituted notice to plaintiff. Reed v. Elmore, supra. Furthermore, before its purchase, plaintiff, through its Senior Warden, had actual notice of the restrictive covenants in the deed to defendant Berry which are quoted above. Plaintiff consummated its purchase with all of the actual and constructive notice of these restrictive covenants that anyone could hope for.
I vote to reverse.