In 1995, Able purchased a parcel of real property described as "Lot 1 in Block 'A' in the City of Grover." In November 1996, Able conveyed a portion of Lot 1 to Baker by deed, which provided that he was conveying "all of Lot 1 to Baker EXCEPT the portion in Lot 1 that Able retained." The deed then set forth the legal description of the portion of Lot 1 that Able retained. Contained within the deed to Baker were the following: "Restriction - No buildings will be erected now or at any future date on any portion of Lot 1." Followed by an additional provision that "Able had the right to cross over that portion of Lot 1 for access to Able retained portion of Lot 1."

In 2009, the Clarkes purchased from Able the portion of Lot 1 that Able retained as well as some adjacent property. Although the deed conveying the Lot 1 property to the Clarkes did not refer to the building restriction or the access right, the Clarkes were made aware of those provisions before they purchased the property. In October 2010, the Sullivans obtained title to the portion of Lot 1 that Able sold to the Bakers and an adjoining lot.

The Clarkes thereafter commenced planning for the construction of their dream home to be built on Lot 1. Their contractors began to travel over the Sullivans' portion of the property on an existing dirt road. The Sullivans became irate and demanded that the Clarkes stop any construction. Further, the Sullivans put a locked chain link fence across the dirt road to stop the contractor's access.

In January 2011, the Clarkes filed suit against the Sullivans for quiet title and declaratory relief, seeking an adjudication that they held title to their Lot 1 property free of the "invalid and unenforceable" building restriction contained in the 1995 deed. The Clarkes argue the building restriction is not enforceable as a covenant running with the land or as an equitable servitude. They also argue the Court should order the chain link fence removed as a valid use of their access easement.

The Sullivans filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief, seeking an adjudication that the building restriction is "binding, valid and enforceable" against the Clarkes as the owners of the restricted property and as against all subsequent owners. The Sullivans further argue the building restriction is enforceable as a covenant running with the land. They additionally argued that the building restriction is enforceable as an equitable servitude and as a negative easement.

1. Who will prevail and why? Discuss.
2. Assume for this prompt only that both restrictions are valid. If either party attempts to sell their property, could a subsequent purchaser upon notice of the two restrictions be compelled to complete the sale? Why?

Please answer question in IRAC format which is Issue/Rule/Application/ Conclusion

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Issue The main issue in this case is whether the building restriction contained in the 1995 deed is enforceable against the Clarkes and subsequent own... View the full answer