Leach v. Larkin - Appeal No. 01-A-01-9302-CH-00066, 1993 Tenn. App. LEXIS 631 (Ct. App. Sep. 24, 1993)

Rule:

A property owner may sell off parcels of a tract to different persons and may include in the deeds restrictive covenants for the benefit of not only the property owner but also the other persons who buy portions of the tract. In this circumstance, the grantees acquire not an absolute and unqualified title to their respective parcels, but rather a title limited by the restrictions contained in the deed. While some ambiguity exists concerning the technical name of the grantees' interests arising from these restrictive covenants, the interest is now commonly known in Tennessee as a reciprocal negative easement.

Facts:

Plaintiff property owners whose deeds contained restrictive covenants prohibiting the sale of alcohol brought suit seeking to restrain defendant from permitting a lessee to operate a restaurant where beer would have been sold. The trial court upheld the restrictive covenants and determined that they applied to all lots in the area. On appeal, defendant took issue with the trial court's conclusion that a common grantor imposed common restrictions on the property that were intended to run with the land.

Issue:

Could a common grantor impose common restrictions on a property, thereby making the restrictive covenants in question valid and applicable to all lots in the area?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court found that record contained overwhelming evidence of the common grantor's plan to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages on his property. The court found that the common grantor intended to preserve the residential character of all the tracts he sold by insulating them from the problems usually associated with establishments that sold alcoholic beverages. The court held that the restrictive covenant in defendant's chain of title clearly ran with the land because it specifically bound the original grantee and the grantee's assigns. The court found that plaintiff shared a common obligation with defendant and had standing to maintain this action to enforce their reciprocal negative easement rights created by the restrictive covenant contained in defendant's deed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the portion of the decree upholding the restrictive covenants' validity as they applied to defendant's property.