Snow v. Van Dam
291 Mass. 477, 1935 Mass. LEXIS 1160, 197 N.E. 224 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a developer establishes a common scheme of development for a tract of land, a restrictive covenant imposed on a lot sold later is enforceable by owners of lots sold earlier. The existence of the scheme demonstrates the grantor's intent for the restrictions to benefit all lots within the defined tract, making them mutually enforceable.
Facts:
- In 1906, a developer named Shackelford acquired a large tract of seaside land in Brier Neck, which was divided by Thatcher Road into a southern portion suitable for residences and a northern, marshy portion.
- Beginning in 1907, Shackelford began selling lots on the southern portion of the tract for summer homes, including in almost all deeds a uniform restriction that only one dwelling house could be built on each lot.
- The northern portion of the tract, including a lot at the entrance to the development, was not initially divided or sold because it was considered undesirable.
- On January 23, 1923, Shackelford conveyed a lot on the northern side (Lot D) to Robert C. Clark, for the first time placing a similar "one dwelling house" restriction on it.
- In 1933, Robert C. Clark conveyed Lot D to the defendant, Van Dam, subject to any existing restrictions.
- Van Dam subsequently constructed a commercial building on Lot D to be used for the sale of ice cream and dairy products.
- The plaintiffs are owners of various residential lots on the southern portion of the tract, many of whom purchased their lots before the restriction was placed on Van Dam's lot in 1923.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, owners of residential lots, filed a suit in the Superior Court of Middlesex County seeking an injunction against Van Dam to prevent the commercial use of his property.
- The trial court issued a final decree granting the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendant, Van Dam, appealed the trial court's decision 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:
Is a restrictive covenant placed on a lot in a tract of land enforceable by owners of other lots in the tract who purchased their lots before the covenant was imposed, where there is evidence of a common scheme of development intended to cover the entire tract from its inception?
Opinions:
Majority - Lummus, J.
Yes, a restrictive covenant placed on a lot is enforceable by prior purchasers if it was imposed pursuant to a common scheme of development that included all lots from the beginning. The existence of such a scheme indicates the grantor's intent that the restrictions be appurtenant to all lots in the tract for their mutual benefit. Here, the evidence shows Shackelford intended to create a common scheme for the entire Brier Neck tract for residential purposes from the outset in 1907. Although Van Dam's lot was not restricted until 1923, its location at the 'gateway' of the development and the uniformity of restrictions on other lots demonstrate it was always part of the scheme. Therefore, the restriction was imposed in pursuance of that scheme, giving earlier purchasers the right to enforce it against Van Dam's commercial use.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle in Massachusetts that a common scheme of development can create mutually enforceable servitudes, even for purchasers who bought their lots before a specific restriction was placed on a neighboring lot. It clarifies that a scheme's existence can be inferred from a series of deeds over time, rather than requiring a formal declaration at the project's inception. This approach protects the expectations of early buyers in a development and provides a mechanism for maintaining the residential character of a neighborhood against non-conforming uses, even when the developer's plan unfolds over many years.
