Northwest Real Estate Co. v. Serio
144 A. 245 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A covenant in a deed conveying a fee simple estate that prohibits the grantee from selling or leasing the property for a limited duration without the grantor's consent is an invalid restraint on alienation and is void as repugnant to the estate granted.
Facts:
- On August 19, 1927, the Northwest Real Estate Company conveyed a lot in fee simple to Carl M. Einbrod and his wife.
- The deed contained a covenant stating that until January 1, 1932, the owner could not sell or rent the land without the written consent of the Northwest Real Estate Company.
- The stated purpose of the covenant was to maintain the property as a 'desirable high class residential section' and allowed the company to pass upon the 'character desirability and other qualifications' of any proposed purchaser or occupant.
- On March 27, 1928, the Einbrods contracted to sell the lot to Charles Serio and his wife.
- The Northwest Real Estate Company refused to provide its written consent for the sale to the Serios.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Serio and his wife sued Carl M. Einbrod, his wife, and the Northwest Real Estate Company in the circuit court (a trial court) seeking specific performance of a contract of sale.
- The Northwest Real Estate Company filed an answer that included a demurrer to the plaintiffs' bill of complaint.
- The plaintiffs demurred to the company's answer.
- The trial court overruled the company's demurrer and sustained the plaintiffs' demurrer.
- After the company did not amend its answer, the trial court held a final hearing and entered a decree declaring the restrictive covenant void and ordering specific performance.
- The Northwest Real Estate Company appealed the trial court's final decree to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
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 covenant in a fee simple deed that prohibits the grantee from selling or renting the property for a limited time without the grantor's consent constitute a void and unenforceable restraint on alienation?
Opinions:
Majority - Urner, J.
Yes, such a covenant is a void and unenforceable restraint on alienation. Conditions or limitations in restraint of alienation cannot be validly annexed to a fee simple estate because they are repugnant to the inherent nature and qualities of the estate granted and tend to public inconvenience. The freedom of alienation is a characteristic incident of a fee simple title. The fact that this restraint is limited in duration to a period of a few years does not make it valid, as the weight of authority holds that even temporary restraints on alienation of a fee simple are void. The provision gives the grantor unqualified discretionary control over the disposition of the property, which is plainly incompatible with the absolute ownership conveyed by the deed.
Dissenting - Bond, C. J.
No, this particular restraint on alienation should be upheld as valid. The general prohibition against restraints on alienation should be evaluated based on public policy and the specific conditions of the case, not applied as an absolute, logical rule. This restraint is limited in time and serves a reasonable and publicly beneficial purpose: protecting the character of a new suburban development, which encourages investment and orderly growth. The traditional grounds for the rule, such as the grantor having no remaining interest, do not apply in modern large-scale developments where the grantor retains a substantial interest in the success of the entire project. The law should adapt to modern conditions and recognize that such a reasonable, temporary restraint can serve the public interest.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional common law rule that direct restraints on the alienation of a fee simple estate are per se void. The court rejected a 'reasonableness' standard that would consider the purpose or duration of the restraint, opting instead for a formalistic approach based on the inherent qualities of the fee simple estate. This precedent makes it difficult for developers to use consent clauses to control the transfer of property after the initial sale, reinforcing the principle that the right to transfer property is a fundamental component of ownership. The dissent's argument for a more flexible, policy-driven analysis that adapts to modern real estate development practices was not adopted, entrenching the strict view against such restraints in this jurisdiction.
