Joslin v. Pine River Development Corp.
1976 N.H. LEXIS 476, 116 N.H. 814, 367 A.2d 599 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When interpreting a restrictive covenant, courts will look beyond the literal language to the surrounding circumstances and the parties' intent at the time of creation, and a restriction explicitly limiting the type of buildings on a lot may implicitly restrict the use of the land itself to purposes consistent with the overall residential development plan.
Facts:
- The original developers, the Scribners, created the Scribner Park Subdivision, consisting of 48 shore lots and numerous back lots on Pine River Pond.
- All deeds for the shore lots, including Lot #26, contained restrictive covenants limiting construction to a single cottage and prohibiting mobile homes.
- The plaintiffs purchased shore lots that were subject to these restrictions.
- A defendant corporation purchased Lot #26 and a large tract of back land, which it then subdivided into 161 lots.
- The corporation sold 147 of the back lots to various buyers, who then formed the defendant Pine River Association, Inc.
- The corporation conveyed Lot #26 to the Pine River Association to provide its members (the back-lot owners) with common access to the lake for swimming, boating, and other recreational activities.
- The defendants entered Lot #26 and began clearing the land for the express purpose of creating a docking, beach, and recreational area.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, owners of shore lots, sued the defendants, a corporation and an association of back-lot owners, in the New Hampshire Superior Court (trial court).
- The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using Lot #26 as a common beach, boating, or access area.
- The Superior Court granted the permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendants appealed the trial court's order to the New Hampshire Supreme 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:
Do restrictive covenants that explicitly regulate the type and number of buildings on a residential lot also implicitly restrict the use of the land itself, thereby prohibiting its use as a common beach and boating area for numerous back-lot owners?
Opinions:
Majority - Kenison, C.J.
Yes, the restrictive covenants implicitly restrict the use of the land itself. The court rejected the old rule of strictly construing covenants in favor of the free use of land, adopting a modern approach that prioritizes the intent of the parties and the overall purpose of the development scheme. Here, although the restrictions only explicitly mentioned buildings, they were part of a general plan to create a residential community. The court reasoned that using Lot #26 as a common recreational area for potentially hundreds of people is inconsistent with the residential character of the subdivision. Therefore, the use is prohibited by the covenants when considered in light of the surrounding circumstances and the general development plan.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in New Hampshire law, moving away from the traditional, rigid rule of strictly construing restrictive covenants. It embraces a more flexible, modern view that considers the drafters' intent and the overall development scheme to determine a covenant's scope. This precedent empowers property owners' associations and individual homeowners to enforce the residential character of their neighborhoods, even when the covenant's language is not perfectly explicit about land use. Future litigation over restrictive covenants will likely focus more on extrinsic evidence of a "general plan" rather than solely on the four corners of the deed.
