DeBlois v. Crosley Bldg. Corp. of Maine, Inc.

Decision Date25 July 1977
Docket NumberNo. 7733,7733
PartiesLeon DeBLOIS et al. v. CROSLEY BUILDING CORPORATION OF MAINE, INC.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Eaton, Moody, Solms & Carroll and Richard E. Mills, Manchester, for plaintiffs.

Lee A. Strimbeck, Derry, by brief and orally for defendant.

GRIMES, Justice.

The questions raised in this petition in equity are whether certain restrictions prohibiting the operation of a restaurant on land conveyed by plaintiffs are binding on defendant and whether plaintiffs' right to use certain parking areas were lost by a failure to annually pay toward the cost of maintenance.

By deed dated 1966, plaintiffs who owned and operated a restaurant in Allenstown, conveyed adjacent property to a realty trust for the building of a shopping plaza. The deed contained the following restrictions:

b) That no business shall be conducted or maintained on the land to be conveyed for the sale of restaurant service for food and refreshments, said restriction, however, shall not apply to so-called snack bar service or soda fountain service customarily located in supermarkets, drug stores or retail discount department stores.

c) An easement in favor of the grantors to use and enjoy the common parking areas from time to time established by grantees in the land to be conveyed, without cost to the grantors or their business invitees, provided, however, that the grantors or their successors in title shall pay to the grantees or their successors in title an annual contribution towards maintenance cost of the parking facilities of Seventy-Five Dollars ($75) per calendar year. This restriction shall cease and terminate at such time as the grantors do not maintain a retail business in the 10,000 foot tract.

Pembroke Realty Trust conveyed the property to Westminister Shopping Centers, Inc., in June 1971 and it later conveyed the property to defendant in March 1973. Both deeds contained the following language, "The foregoing premises are conveyed subject to and with the benefit of the easements, conditions, and covenants as set forth in a deed from Leon DeBlois et ux to the grantors dated April 20, 1966 and recorded Merrimack County Records Book 985, Page 171."

It seems to be undisputed that the $75 yearly payment was made up until 1971 when the property was acquired by Westminister.

There was no request for the payment until Mr. McDonald, defendant's president, wrote plaintiffs stating that he could find no record of the $75 payment. After a series of correspondence plaintiffs tendered $75 to defendant which was returned. The defendant filed an affidavit in the registry of deeds stating that easement "c" was null and void for failure to pay the $75 fee. Plaintiffs then filed this petition seeking to clear this cloud upon their title and to restrain defendant from discontinuing maintenance of the parking lot. Defendant by answer sought affirmative relief by asking that restriction "b" be declared void as against public policy.

The matter was heard before a Master (Earl J. Dearborn, Esq.) who found in favor of plaintiffs and his report was approved by Keller, C. J., who made an order in accordance with it and transferred defendant's exceptions.

Defendant urges us to declare that the imposition by deed of restrictions on the kind of business that can be conducted on the land conveyed to be void as against public...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 14, 2004
    ...the land is further evidenced by the inclusion of the restrictions in the deeds from Fournier as trustee."); De-Blois v. Crosley Bldg. Corp., 117 N.H. 626, 376 A.2d 143, 145 (1977) (finding that the parties to a conveyance of land intended for a covenant to run with the land based on inclus......
  • Red Hill Outing Club v. Hammond
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1998
    ...we have traditionally viewed conditions subsequent with disfavor. See, e.g ., Emerson, 43 N.H. at 477; cf. DeBlois v. Crosley Bldg. Corp., 117 N.H. 626, 629, 376 A.2d 143, 145 (1977). The passage of time has failed to increase the social value of conditions subsequent. Unlike restrictive co......
  • Pappas v. City of Manchester Zoning Bd. of Adjustment
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1977
  • Nashua Garden Corp. v. Gordon, 78-008
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1978
    ...as trustee. Such restrictions are enforceable in this State regardless of what the law may be elsewhere. DeBlois v. Crosley Building Corp., 117 N.H. ---, 376 A.2d 143 (1977). The failure of defendants to enforce the restriction against Barham does not prevent them from enforcing them agains......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT