Houghton v. Rizzo
1972 Mass. LEXIS 937, 361 Mass. 635, 281 N.E.2d 577 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Statute of Frauds, an agreement by a grantor to restrict their remaining land is unenforceable unless it is in writing. An implied restriction cannot be imposed on a grantor's retained land merely from the existence of a common scheme of development evidenced by restrictions in deeds to other lots.
Facts:
- The defendants, Rizzo et al. (Rizzo), owned a tract of land which they subdivided into thirty-seven lots as shown on a recorded plan.
- Between 1965 and 1969, Rizzo sold sixteen of the lots via thirteen separate deeds.
- Eleven of these deeds contained identical restrictions limiting the lots to single-family residences and stating the restrictions were for the benefit of the grantors and the benefitted land, which was defined as all the land on the subdivision plan.
- The plaintiffs, Houghton et al. (Houghton), are the current owners of lots that were conveyed by Rizzo with these restrictions.
- Rizzo never executed any written document that expressly subjected their remaining, unsold lots to the same restrictions.
- In 1969, Rizzo obtained a permit and began construction of a multi-family apartment building on one of their retained lots within the subdivision.
Procedural Posture:
- Houghton et al. filed a bill in equity in the Massachusetts Superior Court seeking to enforce restrictions against Rizzo et al.
- The Superior Court (trial court) entered a final decree in favor of Houghton, enforcing the restrictions against Rizzo's retained land.
- Rizzo, the defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's final decree to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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 a developer's conveyance of multiple lots with identical restrictions pursuant to a subdivision plan create an implied and enforceable servitude on the developer's remaining, unrestricted lots without a written agreement to that effect?
Opinions:
Majority - Quirico, J.
No. A developer's conveyance of multiple lots with identical restrictions does not create an implied and enforceable servitude on their remaining land without a written agreement. The Statute of Frauds requires that any agreement creating an interest in land, including an equitable servitude, must be in writing to be enforceable. The court, relying on the precedent set in Sprague v. Kimball, held that an oral or implied agreement by a vendor to bind their remaining land to restrictions is unenforceable. While the plaintiffs argued that a 'common scheme' of development implied such a restriction, the court clarified that a common scheme is relevant for enforcing restrictions between grantees, but it cannot bind the original grantor's retained land in the absence of a writing. The court emphasized the public policy of maintaining the integrity and reliability of land records, which would be undermined by allowing unwritten, implied restrictions. A purchaser should be able to rely on the public record and should not have to investigate prior deeds from a grantor to determine if their own land might be burdened by implication.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict application of the Statute of Frauds to restrictive covenants in Massachusetts, firmly rejecting the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes against a grantor's retained land. The holding prioritizes the certainty and reliability of recorded land titles over the implied expectations of purchasers in a common scheme development. This places a clear burden on purchasers who desire the benefit of uniform restrictions throughout a subdivision to bargain for and insist upon an express, written covenant from the developer subjecting the developer's remaining land to those same restrictions. The ruling protects developers and subsequent purchasers of retained land from unrecorded encumbrances that can only be discovered by analyzing the developer's prior sales.
