Evans v. Pollock Case Brief

Summary of Evans v. Pollock pg. 443

Facts: A land owner created a subdivision out of their land and created a restrictive covenant on different lots. The lake had covenants but the hilltop did not. Covenant stated: (1) business and commercial enterprises were prohibited; (2) residential use with one residence per lot, and (3) the restriction could be changed by 3/4 of the property owners according to the front footage holdings on the 715 contour line.

Issue: To imply reciprocal negative easements does the entire subdivision have to have the general plan apply to them?

Holding: No

Reasoning: The general scheme or plan of restriction need not apply to the entire subdivision in order to imply reciprocal negative easements. If you subdivide land and create covenants you can apply the covenants to every lot if notice is given.

Decision: Reversed and remanded.

Copyright © 2001-2012 4LawSchool.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner