Restricting Land Use: Covenants Interpretation—Reasonableness and Public Policy

Question 1

Appel v Presley Cos between unit owners and developers

Answer 1

Presley Companies (Defendants) recorded restrictive covenants concerning a subdivision. The covenants regulated the land use, building type, quality and size of the residential single-family dwellings. The Appels (Plaintiffs) bought a home in a subdivision after representations were made about the subdivision and the purpose of the restrictive covenants, and they relied on these representations when they purchased the lot. After their purchase, the subdivision committee made amendments to the covenants, and townhouses were constructed on the lots. The restrictive covenants contained a provision that allowed for amendment of the covenants.
Issue.
Can a subdivision committee make changes to restrictive covenants without the consent of landowners, if those changes are reasonable?
Held.
Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
Provisions allowing amendment of subdivision restrictions are subject to a requirement of reasonableness. A clause in a restrictive covenant that allows a subdivision developer to make amendments to the restrictions is a valid clause as longs as it is exercised in a reasonable manner so as not to destroy the general scheme or plan of development.
Reasonableness includes a regard for the property rights of the people who bought the land in reliance on the restrictive covenants which applied at the time of their purchase.
Here, the clause in the restrictive covenants allowing for amendment is permissible. The trial court must decide if the amendments are reasonable.

Question 2

test tip

Answer 2

when you see fees touch and concern the land , privity fees can touch and concern the land

Question 3

defacto

Answer 3

in fact or reality

Question 4

Reasonable test

Answer 4

what a reasonable person would consider fair

Question 5

Public Policy

Answer 5

Should align with public policy

Question 6

Davidson Brothers Inc v D Katz 7 Sons
Public Policy Supermarket case

Answer 6

Davidson Bros., Inc. (Plaintiffs) owned supermarkets. At one time, he owned a supermarket in the inner city, which he had to close because its volume decreased. Plaintiffs sold the property to D. Katz & Sons, Inc. (Defendant), a rug merchant. A covenant in the deed stated that the property could not be used as a supermarket, and that the covenant ran with the land. Defendant then leased the property to the local Housing Authority that planned to use it as a supermarket because the neighborhood was in need of one. The residents did not have easy access to another supermarket because many did not have cars. Plaintiffs seek to enforce the covenant.
Issue.
If a covenant is contrary to public policy, does it still have to be enforced?
Held.
No.
The covenant was so contrary to public policy that it should no longer be a valid, enforceable obligation.
The city where the store is located has been the focus of redevelopment and revitalization. Many moderate-income housing projects are located downtown. The residents depend on the supermarket for their shopping needs. Many do not have cars to go to other locations. The closing of the supermarket was a hardship.
When a supermarket leaves a neighborhood, many other merchants leave. Food becomes more expensive. A struggling neighborhood struggles even more because of the effects of the withdrawal of a supermarket.
The property in question could easily be reconverted to supermarket use, when other properties could not. Having a supermarket is essential to restore the community as a desirable place to live, work, and shop.
The deed restriction impeded the relocation of another supermarket operation in the area because there were no economically viable substitute supermarket locations. The covenant causes a hardship because of the withdrawal of a supermarket as well as the damage to the ongoing efforts to revitalize the city. The covenant is so contrary to the public interest so is unenforceable.

Question 7

Nahrstedt v lakeside Village Condo Ass Inc
Cat case

Answer 7

Facts
Natore Nahrstedt, an owner of a unit in the 530-unit Lakeside Village Condominium complex in Culver City, Los Angeles County, challenged the homeowners association’s enforcement of a restriction against keeping cats, dogs, and other animals in the development. Nahrstedt argued the restriction, as applied to her three indoor cats, was unreasonable. Despite not being aware of this pet restriction at the time of her condominium purchase, she faced demands for removal of her cats and was fined for each month she remained in violation. The association justified the pet restriction as promoting the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the residents due to the close living quarters.

Issue
The central issue was whether a pet restriction contained in the recorded declaration of a condominium complex is enforceable against a homeowner who claims the restriction is unreasonable as applied to her specific situation.

Holding
The California Supreme Court held that the pet restriction in the condominium development’s recorded declaration was enforceable as an equitable servitude unless proven unreasonable. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which had concluded the restriction’s enforcement depended on its reasonableness as applied to Nahrstedt’s particular situation.

Question 8

Fee simple

Answer 8

Land is forever

Question 9

Test Tip

Answer 9

If you get a question about a developer of architect the answer is in gross

Question 10

Types of consent

Answer 10

express writing, notice of intent
implied, prescriptive, estoppel, necessity implied use from prior use