Brandon v. Price
| Decision Date | 13 June 1958 |
| Parties | Frank M. BRANDON et al., Appellants, v. Paxton S. PRICE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Albert F. Reutlinger, Homer A. Sobel, Arthur W. Grafton, Robert L. Sloss, Louisville, for appellants.
Charles Speed Gray, Louisville, for appellees.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
The question is whether two houses may be built on one platted lot in a certain residential subdivision.
The appellee, Paxton Price, is the owner of a long, rectanguar lot (No. 35) in Rolling Fields Section 3, a subdivision near Louisville. This lot and the adjoining lots front on Tiffany Lane. When the plat of the subdivision was recorded, the rear of these lots abutted on an undeveloped tract of land owned by the same subdividers, but there was an indication, on the plat, of the reservation of a strip of land along the rear of the lots for a future street, and subsequently the undeveloped tract was platted as another subdivision and the reserved strip became a street (Canoe Lane) in the new subdivision. So the rear of Mr. Price's lot, and of the adjoining lots, now abuts on Canoe Lane.
There is a house on Mr. Price's lot, and one on each of the adjoining lots, facing Tiffany Lane. Mr. Price desires to build another house on the rear of his lot, facing Canoe Lane, and he brought this action against other property owners in the subdivision for a declaration of rights. The circuit court entered judgment upholding Mr. Price's right to build the house, and the defendant property owners have appealed.
The evidence shows that Rolling Fields Section 3 was designed and has been developed as a high class residential subdivision. Mr. Price's lot, and the adjoining ones, are long, sloping lots particularly adapted for gracious living. On the plat, building set-back lines are designated, and with the exception of corner lots there is only one set-back line indicated for each lot.
A recorded 'Declaration of Restrictions' requires that the set-back lines be observed, specifies minimum standards for the size of houses, and requires that the plans of each house be submitted to and approved by the subdividers. This declaration further specifies that 'all lots shall be used for private single family residence purposes.'
It is the contention of the appellants that in view of the restriction of use of 'private single family residence purposes,' the designation of set-back lines, and the general nature and character of the subdivision as a high class residential neighborhood, the restriction must be construed as prohibiting more than one house on any platted lot. They point out that since the strip along the rear of Mr. Price's lot was reserved for, and obviously was planned to become a street in another subdivision, the subdividers would have designated a set-back line along the rear of the lot had they intended to permit a house to be built facing that street. They argue that it is inconceivable that the subdividers would require a set-back on all other streets and then exempt this one.
The appellee maintains that a restriction against two houses on one lot can be enfored only if clearly and specifically expressed; that the declared restrictions do not meet this test; and, furthermore, that the evidence shows that the subdividers deliberately omitted making a clear and specific restriction because they thought the zoning regulations would prohibit more than one house on a lot. The fact is that the zoning regulations did contain such a prohibition when the subdivision was platted, but later (while this lawsuit was pending) the regulations were amended to remove the prohibition.
It is our opinion that in its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. St. Clair
...rather than as a restriction on the use of property, and the old-time doctrine of strict construction no longer applies.' Brandon v. Price (Ky.), 314 S.W.2d 521, 523; Macy v. Wormald (Ky.), 329 S.W.2d 212, 'Accordingly, in legal contemplation the servitude imposed on each lot runs to and at......
-
Riss v. Angel
...strict construction[.]" Highbaugh Enter. Inc. v. Deatrick & James Constr. Co., 554 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Ky.Ct.App.1977) (citing Brandon v. Price, 314 S.W.2d 521 (Ky.1958)). Twenty years ago New Hampshire noted that "[t]he former prejudice against restrictive covenants which led courts to strict......
-
Leverton v. Laird, 54369
...to be bound by the strictness of construction heretofore insisted on in some cases: '* * * The better view is stated in Brandon v. Price, 314 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Ky.1958), and quoted with approval in the more recent case of Macy v. Wormald, 329 S.W.2d 212, 214 "Under the modern view, building ......
-
Hensley v. Keith A. Gadd & JHT Props., LLC, 2017-SC-000189-DG AND 2017-SC-000431-DG
...and the old-time doctrine of strict construction no longer applies.’ " Triple Crown, 279 S.W.3d at 140 (quoting Brandon v. Price, 314 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Ky. 1958) )."We must seek the intention of the grantor from the language used, considered in light of such factors as the general scheme of ......
-
STALE REAL ESTATE COVENANTS.
...Phillips 774, 41 Eng. Rep. 1143 (Chap. 1848) (enforcing negative covenant as an equitable servitude). (44.) See, e.g., Brandon v. Price, 314 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Ky. 1958) ("Under the modern view. building restrictions are regarded more as a protection to the property owner and the public rathe......