Bolotin v. Rindge

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff  Bolotin sought to build a commercial building on his lot,and he sued for declaratory relief and to quiet title against the deed restrictions.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

If the restrictions’ purposes are not obsolete and enforcement will benefit neighboring property owners, changed conditions do not make deed restrictions unenforceable.

Facts.

Plaintiff Bolotin and Defendant Rindge owned property on the same street. Both lots were subject to the same deed restrictions. Wilshire Boulevard became more commercial over time. Plaintiff sought to build a commercial building on his lot, and he sued for declaratory relief and to quiet title against the deed restrictions. The trial court declared the deed restrictions to be unenforceable in part.

Issue.

If the restrictions’ purposes are not obsolete and enforcement will benefit neighboring property owners, does changed conditions make deed restrictions unenforceable.

Held.

No. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is reversed.

Discussion.

In this case, a commercial building might destroy the physical conditions that make the neighborhood desirable. The trial court should determine whether enforcement of the restrictions will benefit the other property owners.