Bomar v. Echols

Supreme Court of South Carolina
244 S.E.2d 308, 270 S.C. 676 (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a reciprocal negative easement to be implied and enforceable against a grantee, the existence of a common scheme or plan of development for the restricted tract must be plain and unmistakable; placing similar restrictions in a minority of deeds over a long period without a master plat is insufficient to establish such a plan.

Facts:

A. H. Vaughn originally owned a large tract of land and conveyed four lots from it without any use restrictions.
Upon A. H. Vaughn's death in 1952, the remainder of the tract was devised to his son, Grover C. Vaughn.
Between 1953 and 1959, Grover Vaughn sold six lots, with the deeds for five of them containing restrictions limiting use to residential purposes.
The Vaughn family never created or recorded a master subdivision plat for the entire tract, nor did they improve or develop the land for use as a subdivision.
After Grover Vaughn's death, his wife inherited the remaining land and sold approximately forty acres of what was idle farm land to Albert L. Echols in 1974.
The deed conveying the forty-acre tract to Echols did not contain any restrictions on use.
Echols began developing his forty-acre tract as a mobile home subdivision.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiffs-respondents, owners of lots in the Vaughn tract, sued defendant-appellant Albert L. Echols in a court of first instance to enjoin him from developing a mobile home subdivision.
The action was heard by a Master in Equity, who concluded the restrictions did not apply to Echols' land and recommended the action be dismissed.
The plaintiffs-respondents filed exceptions to the Master's Report.
The lower court (trial court) disagreed with the Master, sustained the exceptions, and granted a permanent injunction against Echols.
Echols (appellant) appealed the lower court's decision to the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the inclusion of similar restrictive covenants in a minority of deeds from a common grantor, without a master plat or other evidence of a common development plan, create an implied reciprocal negative easement that is enforceable against a subsequent grantee whose deed contains no restrictions?

Opinions:

Majority - Rhodes, Justice

No. The inclusion of restrictive covenants in a minority of deeds from a common grantor does not create a reciprocal negative easement enforceable against a subsequent grantee where there is no plain and unmistakable evidence of a general plan of development for the entire tract. To establish a reciprocal negative easement, four elements are required: a common grantor, designation of the restricted land, a general plan or scheme of restriction, and covenants that run with the land. The court found the evidence failed to establish the third element, a general plan or scheme. The implication of such a plan must be 'plain and unmistakable.' Here, only six of fourteen total conveyances contained restrictions, the sales were piecemeal over a considerable time span from a large tract of land, and there was no master plat. The court applied the principle that restrictive covenants are to be construed strictly against those seeking to enforce them and all doubts are resolved in favor of the free use of property.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required to establish a restrictive covenant by implication, known as a reciprocal negative easement. It clarifies that merely including similar restrictions in some deeds from a common grantor is insufficient to bind the entire tract without more substantial evidence of a uniform development plan. The ruling protects subsequent purchasers who take without notice of unrecorded, implied restrictions and strongly affirms the legal principle of favoring the free and unrestricted use of land. Following this case, parties seeking to enforce implied restrictions must present compelling evidence of a 'general plan,' such as a recorded master plat, uniform marketing materials, or a very high percentage of similarly restricted lots.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bomar v. Echols (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"