Pappas v. Garber, 21 A.D.2d 244 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

A restrictive covenant is only enforceable by a landowner against another landowner in a subdivision if there is clear and definite evidence of a common plan or scheme of development demonstrating that the covenants were intended for the mutual benefit of all grantees.

Summary

Plaintiffs, landowners in a subdivision, sought to enforce a restrictive covenant against the defendant, a neighboring landowner, to prevent the conversion of a barn into a second residence. The covenant, included in the defendant’s deed, restricted the property to a single residence. The court held that the plaintiffs could not enforce the covenant because they failed to prove the existence of a common plan or scheme of development indicating that the covenant was intended for the mutual benefit of all grantees in the subdivision. The absence of a filed map, lack of evidence that purchasers relied on a common scheme, and inconsistent advertising materials undermined the claim of a general plan.

Facts

Garber Lake Realty Corp. acquired a tract of land in 1946 without restrictions. Between 1947 and 1955, Garber conveyed approximately 20 parcels, including those owned by the plaintiffs. All but one of these conveyances contained a restrictive covenant limiting the property to a single residence. The defendant purchased a plot from Garber in 1957, with a similar covenant in the deed. The defendant began converting a barn on their property into a second residence, prompting the plaintiffs to sue to enforce the restrictive covenant. A map plotting numerous parcels existed but was never filed or shown to purchasers. The defendant conveyed the portion of her land with the barn to her son after the lawsuit began.

Procedural History

The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, enforcing the restrictive covenant. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s decision, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the existence of a common plan of development necessary to enforce the covenant against the defendant.

Issue(s)

Whether the plaintiffs, as landowners in a subdivision, can enforce a restrictive covenant contained in the defendant’s deed, when the plaintiffs are not parties to the deed and allege a common plan of development.

Holding

No, because the plaintiffs failed to prove that a common plan or scheme of development existed indicating that the restrictive covenants were intended for the mutual benefit of all grantees in the subdivision.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the plaintiffs, as strangers to the deed containing the covenant, had the burden of proving that the similar covenants in the deeds from Garber Realty were intended for the mutual benefit of all grantees, not just for the grantor, Garber. Absent an explicit provision in the covenant stating it was for the benefit of other grantees (creating third-party beneficiary status), the plaintiffs needed to show that the parcels were part of a general plan of development. The court found the evidence lacking to support this claim. The court emphasized that no map was ever filed or shown to prospective purchasers, and no testimony indicated that any grantee bought with knowledge of or reliance on a uniform scheme of restrictions. The court noted that only four of the deeds gave any indication of a plan, stating the property was intended for first-class residential use, but even these deeds lacked uniform, mutually binding restrictions. The court stated, “[T]here is simply a complete failure of proof that a uniform scheme of restrictions was ever made manifest to all parties, and most certainly a failure of proof that this defendant, a purchaser for value, had notice, actual or constructive, of any such common scheme.” The advertisement for the liquidation sale further undermined the claim, boasting of the area’s recreational potential and suitability for various uses, including subdivision for private homes, summer camps, or dude ranches, which is inconsistent with a uniform residential scheme. The court also found significant that other parcels sold at the same sale included language subjecting them to existing restrictions, which was absent from the defendant’s deed, indicating no intent to bind the defendant’s parcel to the same restrictions. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant had notice, actual or constructive, of any common scheme.