Restrictive covenants (sufficient description for binding property) — TRIPLE CROWN SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. CLINTON S. OBERST (SC 11/26/2008)

TRIPLE CROWN SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. CLINTON S.
OBERST
PROPERTY:  Restrictive covenants (sufficient description for binding
property)
2006-SC-000934-DG.pdf
PUBLISHED: REVERSING AND REMANDING
OPINION BY SCHRODER; ABRAMSON NOT SITTING
BOON COUNTY
DATE RENDERED: 11/26/2008

Appellees purchased property whose deed stated the property was subject to the “Declaration of Covenants recorded in Miscellaneous Book 292, Page 1.” The developer had previously established a general plan and uniform scheme of development that applied to all property owned and subsequently acquired by the developer. This plan was recorded with the county clerk’s office as a “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.” The purchasers claimed that since the plan was never amended to include a legal description of their specific property, the restrictions were inapplicable as to their property. The Supreme Court disagreed holding that “incorporation by reference” was an accepted practice for setting out covenants and the restrictions were applicable as against the
Appellees’ property. 

From SC November
Summaries

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.