Riste v. Eastern Washington Bible Camp, Inc.
25 Wash. App. 299, 605 P.2d 1294, 1980 Wash. App. LEXIS 1965 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A clause in a fee simple deed that directly restrains alienation by requiring the grantor's approval for resale is void as against public policy. Additionally, deed restrictions that limit occupancy or conveyance based on creed are void under state anti-discrimination statutes.
Facts:
- Eastern Washington Bible Camp, Inc. (Bible Camp) owned and subdivided land on Silver Lake in Spokane County.
- The Bible Camp sold lots exclusively to individuals who agreed to subscribe to the tenets of the Assembly of God Church.
- In 1968, George Riste's parents entered into a contract with the Bible Camp to purchase two lots, with the contract containing restrictions.
- In 1974, after the contract was fully paid, the Bible Camp issued a deed to George Riste at his surviving parent's request.
- The deed contained a restriction requiring the Bible Camp's written approval for any resale of the property (Restriction No. 8).
- The deed also included a restriction requiring occupants to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of the Assembly of God Church (Restriction No. 6).
- Riste later attempted to sell the property in a manner that did not comply with these restrictions.
- The Bible Camp refused Riste's request to remove the restrictions from the deed.
Procedural Posture:
- George Riste filed a lawsuit against Eastern Washington Bible Camp, Inc. in the trial court.
- Riste sought a declaratory judgment that the deed restrictions were invalid and asked the court to reform the deed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Riste.
- The trial court's ruling held that the restrictions were void as a matter of law and ordered the deed to be reformed.
- Eastern Washington Bible Camp, Inc., the defendant, appealed the trial court's summary judgment ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are deed restrictions that require the seller's approval for any resale and mandate that occupants conform to the principles of a specific religious group legally valid and enforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Roe, J.
No. Deed restrictions that require seller approval for resale or mandate adherence to religious principles are not legally valid or enforceable. The restriction requiring the Bible Camp's approval for resale is a direct restraint on alienation of a fee simple estate, which is void as repugnant to the nature of the estate. The court cited Richardson v. Danson for the principle that such restraints are void on public policy grounds. The argument that Riste knew of the restrictions and is thus equitably estopped from challenging them fails because estoppel cannot validate a provision that is void for public policy reasons. Furthermore, the restriction requiring residents to conform to the principles of the Assembly of God church is a restriction based on 'creed,' which is expressly declared void by Washington's anti-discrimination statute, RCW 49.60.224. The statute applies because the deed was issued in 1974, after the statute's enactment, and court enforcement of such a covenant would in any event be impermissible under the principles of Shelley v. Kraemer.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the common law doctrine disfavoring direct restraints on the alienation of property held in fee simple. It clarifies that such restraints are void as a matter of public policy, and doctrines like equitable estoppel cannot be used to enforce them, even if the buyer had full knowledge of the restriction. The decision also demonstrates the direct application of modern anti-discrimination statutes to invalidate private restrictive covenants based on religion. This precedent limits the ability of private organizations, including religious ones, to use deed restrictions to create homogenous communities when they sell property in fee simple, prioritizing free transferability of land and statutory anti-discrimination mandates over private contractual freedom.
