Crozier v. Malone
| Decision Date | 14 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2976,2976 |
| Citation | 366 P.2d 125 |
| Parties | John CROZIER and Delia K. Crozier, Appellants (Defendants below), v. Edmund J. MALONE, Philip E. Johnson, Lawrence F. Kotecki and Lawrence G. Brown, Appellees (Plaintiffs below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Philip White, Cheyenne, for appellants.
A. Joseph Williams, Cheyenne, for appellees.
Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER, HARNSBERGER and McINTYRE, JJ.
Plaintiffs, residents of a subdivision known as North Cheyenne, sued to enjoin defendants from using three lots as an automobile trailer park contrary to a certain declaration of protective covenants for the area. Defendants admitted the filing of the declaration but contended that their grantors took by deeds which were dated prior to the time that the declaration was placed of record. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and the parties stipulated the facts which they considered to be material. The court granted an injunction and defendants have appealed.
At the inception, it must be noted that both litigants have failed to comply with Rule 12(a) and (c), Rules of the Supreme Court of Wyoming. There is no subject index, table of cases, or listing on the first page of the brief of the names of counsel and the persons represented by them. While the present litigation is not so complex or ramified that a failure to here observe the rule causes serious inconvenience, the noncompliance may not be passed without observation.
The facts are uncomplicated. In 1948 a plat of North Cheyenne was filed with the County Clerk of Laramie County, and on June 5, 1956, the properly authorized officers of the U.A.L. Employees Building Association executed a declaration of protective covenants for North Cheyenne at a time when the association was the owner of some 120 lots in the area, including the three now in controversy. The declaration contained a number of restrictions, one of which provided that no trailer should be used on any lot as a residence either temporarily or permanently. This declaration was circulated among the owners of the remaining lots in North Cheyenne who executed the covenants prior to July 28. Meantime, the association was in the process of dissolution, and the members thereof were being advised of the proposal of dissolution and offered lots or cash in exchange for their interest in the association. They were told that the protective covenants were being placed on the lots, and copies thereof were sent to the members prior to a meeting called for the dissolution of the association and the adoption of the covenants. At such meeting, there was a unanimous vote to accomplish both purposes.
On June 22, 1956, the association had completed, but did not immediately deliver to members Stophlet and Caveny, the deeds to the land in question. Each instrument recited, 'subject to protective covenants of record.' The declaration of protective covenants was delivered to the county clerk and recorded at 1:21 p. m., July 31, 1956, and the deeds to Stophlet and Caveny were recorded one minute later. The county clerk after the recordation mailed the deeds to the association's attorney, and the attorney mailed them to the grantees about August 10.
The Croziers entered into a contract of sale with Stophlet on October 13, 1956, for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and on October 25 took title by warranty deed from Caveny to Lot 3. Defendants, contending principally that no declaration of protective covenants was of record at the time that the association executed the deeds to Stophlet and Caveny, state that there are two questions properly raised by this appeal:
(1) Do the recitals in a deed insofar as terms and conditions are concerned relate to the date of the execution of the instrument or to the date of delivery?
(2) May a subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Ventling, Matter of
...purchaser from the contract vendor as the recorded owner. See recording effect, Condos v. Trapp, 739 P.2d 749 (Wyo.1987); Crozier v. Malone, 366 P.2d 125 (Wyo.1961); and Torgeson v. Connelly, 348 P.2d 63 (Wyo.1959). Unquestionably, a different character of protected interest is created for ......
-
Hein v. Lee
...requires delivery, as well as execution, of a deed, for it to be valid. Butler v. McGee, Wyo., 373 P.2d 595 (1962); and Crozier v. Malone, Wyo. 366 P.2d 125 (1966). This Court has noted in passing that legal title ordinarily remains in the grantor when a deed is placed in escrow. Cameron v.......
-
Bowers Welding and Hotshot, Inc. v. Bromley
...further finds that the defendants had actual notice of the restrictive covenants. They also had constructive notice." In Crozier v. Malone, Wyo., 366 P.2d 125 (1961), we held the purchasers of three lots in a tract of land had notice of a restrictive covenant prohibiting trailers as residen......
-
Wood v. Trenchard
...from his father at the time they secured this lease because a subsequent purchaser has constructive notice of the title, Crozier v. Malone, Wyo., 366 P.2d 125, 127, and § 34-21, It is improper to grant a summary judgment if there is any real issue of material fact, Godard v. Ridgway, Wyo., ......