Court Case 121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. covenants in question are unenforceable for two individually sufficient reasons. A. These restrictive covenants are not enforceable against defendants be- cause they are only referred to in the "warranty" portion of the deed to the land. The courts have ruled that mention of restrictive covenants only in the "warranty" is not a sufficient contractual basis to render such covenants binding upon the purchaser. B. The restrictive covenant allegedly violated here is vague and ambiguous. The courts have resolved all such ambiguities in favor of the free and unrestricted use of land. Ambiguity in the covenants as to the terms "camping equipment" and "in use" renders this covenant unenforceable. Before discussing these two assertions, however, it is important to note that the deficiencies in the restrictive covenants which are the subject of this argument render the covenants unenforceable regardless of who seeks to enforce them. It is of no significance whether the plaintiff in this action is Voyager Village or the Property Owners Association because the covenants are defective and never were enforceable against the defendants, and thus do not run with the land. Defendants' first contention (A.) is that the restrictive covenants are unenforceable because they are only referred to in the "warranty" portion of defendants' deeds and do not receive further mention in the deed. Section 6 of plaintiff's complaint states: "That the deed of conveyance to Robert Schwinghammer and Theresa Schwinghammer, his wife, specifically excepted from its warranty re- corded covenants and restrictions of record and thereby put the defendants on notice in regard to the covenants and restrictions noted above." Defendant contends that a warranty in a deed only serves to assure purchasers of property that owner- ship of the property is unchallenged, and for the protection of the purchaser re- quires the seller to defend against claims contesting the clear deed. Such a warranty provision does not seek to establish the terms of the conveyance or rights as to the use of the property conveyed. Black's Law Dictionary defines a "warranty" as: "A real covenant by the grantor of lands for himself and his heirs, to warrant and defend the title and possession of the estate granted, to the grantee and his heirs, to warrant and defend the title and possession of the estate granted, to the grantee and his heirs, whereby, either upon voucher . . . and the eviction of the grantee by paramount title, the grantor was bound to recompense him with lands of equal value." The courts have uniformly held that mention of restrictive covenants only in this "warranty" to the deed is insufficient to impose these restrictive covenants upon the purchaser of the land. In Keith v. Seymour, 335 SW2d 862, Tex Civ. App. (1960) , where one of the deeds in question, made no mention of building restrictions except by its general warranty clause (the grantor warranted to defend the title (except as against the reservations, restrictions, covenants and conditions of record applicable to this property as part of the Live Oaks Addition,") it was held that the language just quoted did not impose building restrictions on the property "since a covenant of warranty is not part of the conveyance and does not strengthen, enlarge, or limit the title conveyed." The court in Smith v. Second Church of Christ Scientist, 87 Ariz. 400, 351 P2d 1104, 84 ALR2d 716 reached the