Evans v. Pollock
796 S.W.2d 465 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, restrictive covenants may be implied on a developer's retained lots if they are part of a clearly-defined restricted district within a subdivision, even if the developer's general plan of development did not intend for restrictions to cover the entire subdivision.
Facts:
- In 1947, the Hornsbys and McCormicks platted the 'Beby's Ranch Subdivision No. 1' around Lake Travis, dividing it into blocks, some of which were subdivided into lots.
- The plat itself contained no restrictions, but all platted lots were lakefront, with Block F being a distinct 'hilltop' block.
- The developers partitioned the property, and over the next several years, sold 29 parcels, almost all of which were lakefront lots.
- Each deed for the sold lots contained substantially similar restrictive covenants, including a prohibition on commercial use and a provision allowing changes by a vote of owners based on lakefront footage.
- The Hornsbys retained ownership of several lakefront lots in Block G and all of the hilltop Block F.
- After the Hornsbys' deaths, their devisees contracted to sell the retained lakefront lots and the hilltop block to Thomas R. Pollock for the development of a marina, private club, and condominiums.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Evans and other property owners sued the Hornsby devisees in state trial court seeking a declaration that restrictive covenants applied to the retained property and an injunction to prevent its sale for commercial use.
- The trial court entered a judgment declaring that the restrictions applied to the five retained lakefront lots but not to the hilltop Block F, and enjoined the devisees from conveying the lakefront lots without the restrictions.
- All parties appealed to the court of appeals. The Hornsby devisees and Pollock, as appellants, argued no restrictions should be implied, while Evans and the other owners, as appellees/cross-appellants, argued the restrictions should also apply to the hilltop block.
- The intermediate court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiffs, holding that the doctrine requires a plan intended to restrict the entire subdivision.
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 implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine require a general plan of development to cover an entire subdivided tract for restrictions to be implied on the developer's retained land within that tract?
Opinions:
Majority - Ray, Justice
No. The implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine does not require a general plan of development to cover an entire subdivided tract; it is sufficient that the plan applies to a clearly-defined restricted district. The court reasoned that the central inquiry is the developer's intent regarding the scope of the general plan. Citing precedents like Curlee v. Walker, the court affirmed that a scheme of restrictions can validly apply to a specific 'restricted district' without encompassing the whole subdivision. Here, evidence such as the restriction limiting voting rights to lakefront property owners strongly suggested the general plan was intended to apply only to the lakefront lots, creating a distinct restricted district. The court found this interpretation consistent with Texas case law and persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, which have recognized that a plan need not apply to the whole tract for the doctrine to be effective as to the restricted portion.
Dissenting - Gonzalez, Justice
The text notes a dissent was filed but does not provide its content.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine in Texas by rejecting an all-or-nothing approach. By allowing the creation of 'restricted districts' within a larger development, the court provides flexibility and protects the reliance interests of purchasers who buy into a common scheme, even if that scheme is not subdivision-wide. This holding makes the developer's intent regarding the geographic scope of the restrictions a critical question of fact in future disputes. It shifts the focus from whether the entire tract is covered to whether a specific, retained lot falls within a clearly-defined restricted area.
Unlock the full brief for Evans v. Pollock