Citation. 367 Mass. 355, 325 N.E.2d 572, 1975 Mass.
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here Brief Fact Summary.
The Plaintiffs, the Guillette family and two other families (Plaintiffs), filed suit to prevent the Defendant, Daly Dry Wall, Inc. (Defendant), from building a structure that was in violation of restrictions found in Plaintiffs’ deed. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendant were owners of lots in the same subdivision.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Each of the several grantees if within the scope of the common scheme, is an intended beneficiary of the restrictions and may enforce them against the others.
Facts.
There are two lots located in a subdivision in controversy. One has a recorded deed containing references to a plan and restrictions that are applicable to every lot in the subdivision. The second later deed from the same grantor did not refer to the restrictions, but did refer to the plan. Plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin the Defendant from constructing an apartment building on their lot, citing to the restrictions contained in their deed. The trial court found for the Plaintiffs and Defendant appealed.
Issue.
Whether the Defendant is bound by restrictions contained in the deeds of its neighbors in the subdivision from a common grantor, when Defendant purchased the land without knowledge of these restrictions.
Held.
Affirmed, Defendant is bound by the restrictions imposed by the common grantor to the subdivision.
When a grantor binds his land by writing, reciprocity of restriction between grantor and the grantee can be enforced.
A subsequent purchaser from the common grantor, acquires title subject to the restrictions in the deed to the earlier purchaser.
Each of the several grantees if within the scope of the common scheme, is an intended beneficiary of the restrictions and may enforce them against the others.
Discussion.
The court ruled that even though the restrictions did not appear in Defendant’s deed, there was mention of a common plan. Because the grantor properly recorded these restrictions and plan, each grantee could enforce the restrictions against others in the common plan, which in this case was the subdivision.
