Berkley v. Conway Partnership
| Decision Date | 25 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 49799,49799 |
| Citation | 708 S.W.2d 225 |
| Parties | Sara E. BERKLEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CONWAY PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard Alan Cooper, St. Louis, for appellant.
Theodore H. Hellmuth, St. Louis, for respondent.
Conway Partnership and Richard J. Wilhelm appeal from a trial court judgment granting the injunction sought by respondents, the owners of nine of the twelve platted lots in Ingleside, a residential subdivision in the City of Ladue in St. Louis County. The court enjoined appellants from resubdividing two lots in the subdivision to create a third lot, for the purpose of building a home on the newly created lot.
Appellants urge this court to find reversible error as a matter of law in the trial court's interpretation of a restrictive covenant and in its holding that subsequent indentures did not alter the restrictions agreement. Their points are denied and the judgment affirmed.
The parties submitted the case to the trial court on stipulated facts and exhibits which are summarily recited. On April 21, 1952, the owner of a certain tract of land in St. Louis County subdivided the parcel into twelve lots known as Ingleside Subdivision and recorded the plat in St. Louis County Records on April 10, 1953.
The plat contains a survey of the twelve lots and recites, among other things, that all of the lots in the subdivision shall be sold subject to the conditions, restrictions, covenants and agreements contained in a declaration of restrictions which was filed for record at the same time as the plat.
On the plat appears a certification from the City Clerk of Ladue that the plat of Ingleside was approved by the mayor and board of alderman of the City of Ladue by an ordinance approved April 28, 1952.
A document entitled "Ingleside Restrictions" bearing the same date as the plat was filed for record on the same day as the plat in the office of the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds. Article six of these restrictions provided that the covenants run with the land and be binding until January 1, 1985; afterwards, the restrictions were to be automatically extended at ten year intervals unless changed by a vote of a majority of the then owners of lots. They are still in effect. Article six also includes the following paragraph:
(a) All lots in the tract shall be known and described as residential lots. No structures shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any residential building lot other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height and a private garage for not more than three cars and other outbuildings incidental to residential use of the plot.
The following paragraph concludes the restriction agreement:
This Restriction Agreement is executed and certain of the restrictions herein contained are placed upon the property hereinabove described pursuant to an agreement made with the City of Ladue, as a result of which said City has rezoned said property from a "C" Residence District to a "D" Residence District, and no change or release of any of said restrictions shall be valid unless the City of Ladue agrees thereto in writing.
The City of Ladue has never agreed to any change in the questioned restriction.
Appellants planned to further subdivide Lots 11 and 12 into three lots and build another home on the newly created third lot; they argue that no language in the applicable covenants restricts the number of lots in Ingleside or prohibits the re-subdividion of any of the twelve lots as platted.
The trial court held that the restriction agreement prohibited the construction of more than one home on any of the twelve single lots in Ingleside; therefore, a further subdivision of Lots 11 and 12 would not permit the construction of another residence in Ingleside. This court agrees.
In a court-tried case upon a stipulation of facts, the only question before a reviewing court is whether the trial court drew the proper legal conclusions from those facts. Miskimen v. Kansas City Star Co., 684 S.W.2d 394, 398-99 (Mo.App.1984). This court can address only the legal consequences of the stipulated facts and submitted exhibits. Id.
Rule 73.01 as interpreted in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32[1-3] (Mo. banc 1976), governs appellate review of court-tried cases. Reversal will ensue only if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trs. of Clayton Terrace Subdivision v. 6 Clayton Terrace, LLC
.... Strict construction "should never be applied in such a way as to defeat the plain purpose of the restriction." Berkley v. Conway P’ship, 708 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo. App. 1986) . "If the intention of the parties to the deed containing the restrictions is clearly expressed the intention contro......
-
Thomas v. Depaoli
...necessarily requires an inquiry into the purposes sought to be accomplished by the restrictive covenant. Berkley v. Conway Partnership, 708 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo.App.1986). We find no Missouri cases specifically discussing the purpose of a restriction prohibiting erection of a building within......
-
Daniel v. Galloway
...the parties' situation, together with accompanying circumstances, to determine the intention of the parties. Berkley v. Conway Partnership, 708 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo.App.1986); Phillips v. Schwartz, 607 S.W.2d at 207. This includes an inquiry into the purpose the parties sought to accomplish ......
-
Blackburn v. Richardson
...however, the meaning of the restriction is in doubt, it is proper to consider the intention of the parties, Berkley v. Conway Partnership, 708 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo.App.1986), which includes an inquiry into the purpose which the parties sought to accomplish by the restrictive covenant, Philli......
-
Redefining "Amend": For the "Better" of Whom?
...Ct. App. 1982); Udo Siebel-Spath v. Constr. Enters., 633 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). (58.) See, e.g., Berkley v. Conway P'ship, 708 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986); Weiss v. Fayant, 606 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980); Buoncristiani v. Randall, 526 S.W.2d 68, 72 (Mo. Ct. App.......