Beyt v. Woodvale Place Apartments

• Decision Date: 28 June 1974
• Docket Number: No. 4576,4576
• Citation: 297 So.2d 448
• Parties: Bernard E. BEYT, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WOODVALE PLACE APARTMENTS et al., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 448

297 So.2d 448

Bernard E. BEYT, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WOODVALE PLACE APARTMENTS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 4576.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 28, 1974.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1974.

Writ Refused Oct. 4, 1974.

Ronald J. Gossen, Lafayette, for defendants and appellants.

Richard R. Kennedy, Lafayette, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before HOOD, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

This is a suit to enjoin the violation of building restrictions in a residential subdivision. Plaintiff is the owner of portions of certain lots in the subdivision. Defendants constructed a private hard-surfaced boulevard, approximately 150 feet in width, across two lots in the subdivision. This passageway provides ingress and egress for a large apartment complex owned by defendants on land adjacent to the subdivision. The district judge found the construction of this hard-surfaced passageway is a violation of the subdivision building restrictions. He issued an injunction ordering its removal. Defendants appealed.

The building restriction at issue reads as follows:

'(2) All lots in said subdivision are restricted for residential purposes and no structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on said lot except one or two story family dwellings and all other appropriate outhouses.'

The facts were stipulated. They show that in 1962 an 'Act of Dedication' of Magnolia Park Subdivision, Extension No. 3, was filed by the owners in the conveyance records of Lafayette Parish. This 'Act of Dedication' contains certain building restrictions, including No. 2 quoted above. It is conceded these restrictions are in full force and effect.

In 1969, plaintiff acquired portions of Lots Nos. 16, 17 and 18 where he now resides. In November of 1972, defendants 'commenced the construction of a hard-surfaced vehicular passageway covering all or substantially all of the surface area of the said Lots 7 and 8 to provide a means of ingress and egress from the Woodvale Place Apartments into Woodvale Avenue; that this hard-surfaced vehicular passageway is privately owned by defendants, was constructed with defendants' funds, and never has been dedicated to public use.'

Lots 7 and 8 have a frontage of 75 feet each on Woodvale Avenue, by a depth of approximately 125 feet. Photographs filed in evidence show that a large hard-surfaced boulevard has been constructed on these lots. The apartment complex to which the boulevard leads, cost approximately $2,600,000 and comprises 10 or 11 two-story buildings.

In the landmark case of Salerno v. De Lucca, 211 La. 659, 30 So.2d 678 (1947) the applicable law is stated as follows:

'It is the well established jurisprudence of this state that where restrictions have been inserted in deeds in pursuance of a general plan devised by the ancestor in title to maintain certain building standards and uniform improvements, such as those here under consideration, they are valid and enforceable. (citations omitted) These are real rights or covenants that run with the land for the benefit of land owners within the area and to prevent the violation of these restrictions injunction proceedings may be resorted to. (citations omitted)

'Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whether differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the words used in the stipulations in the deed, consideration being given to the entire context of the instrument rather than to a single phrase or clause, for obviously those acquiring the property in the restricted area were motivated and influenced to purchase the same because of these limitations and they are entitled to the presumption that they will be fairly and faithfully complied with.'

Recent cases in which these rules have been followed are Oak Ridge Builders, Inc. v. Bryant, 252 So.2d 169 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1971); Guyton v. Yancey, 240 La. 794, 125 So.2d 365 (1961); McGuffy v. Weil, 240 La. 758, 128 So.2d 154 (1960); and Community Builders, Inc. v. Scarborough, 149 So.2d 141 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1963)...