Emma v. Silvestri, 14
| Decision Date | 16 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Citation | 101 R.I. 749,227 A.2d 480 |
| Parties | Anthony L. EMMA v. Kenneth D. SILVESTRI. Appeal |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This bill in equity was brought to enjoin the respondent from conducting a dental practice in an office within his home, located in Cranston on the Dean Estates Plat, so called, allegedly in violation of restrictions on the use of said property contained in the deed by which the property was conveyed to him. A justice of the superior court, after hearing, entered a judgment permanently enjoining the respondent from conducting said dental practice within his home. From the judgment the respondent has prosecuted an appeal to this court.
It appears from the record that one John Montaquila was the developer of the Dean Estates Plat. He testified that when he acquired this tract of land, the conveyance to him set out the restrictions on the use of the lots delineated thereon which he continued to impose in subsequent conveyances made by him. It appears that the developer has since 1941 conveyed between 250 and 300 parcels of land and that the restrictions to which reference is made were contained in all but two of these conveyances. The two conveyances made without the restrictions were conveyed for church purposes, and it appears that churches were subsequently erected and operated on said lots.
The restrictions under consideration, to the extent they are pertinent, provide that 'Said premises shall be used solely and exclusively for single family private residence purposes' and that the premises therein conveyed 'shall be used and occupied solely and exclusively by a single family' and shall not be used 'in any way or for any purpose which may endanger the health, or unreasonably disturb the quiet, of any holder of adjoining land.'
As respondent argues, the general rule concerning restrictive convenants is that they are to be construed strictly so as to favor an unrestricted use of property, are not to be extended by implication, and if there is ambiguity, it is to be resolved in favor of an unrestricted use. Maryland Trust Co. v. Tulip Realty Co., 220 Md. 399, 153 A.2d 275. It is well settled, however, that where, in conformity with a general plan for development, the owner of property divides it into building lots and conveys them subject to restrictions, intending to thereby promote a uniform plan of development for the plat consistent with such restrictions, any subsequent owner may enforce the restrictions against any other grantee or the present owner of such lots. Noonan v. Cuddigan, 85 R.I. 328, 131 A.2d 241.
The trial justice in the instant case found on the evidence that the developer had in the conveyances made by him included these restrictions pursuant to an intention to establish such a uniform plan of development for the plat consistent with the restrictions set forth in the deeds by which he conveyed the lots. The respondent argues that the trial justice erred in so finding.
It is well settled that the findings of fact of a judge sitting in equity will not be disturbed by this court unless they are clearly wrong. Sherman v. Goloskie, 95 R.I. 457, 188 A.2d 79. In the circumstances it is the burden of respondent to establish that the trial justice misconceived or overlooked evidence on this issue, and, in our opinion, he has failed to sustain this burden. The developer testified that the restrictions had been set out in the deeds by him for the purpose of developing in accordance with such a uniform plan and that during a period of twenty years he had conveyed between 250 and 300 lots, all but two of which had been conveyed subject to the restrictions under consideration. The record discloses that the two exceptions were for parcels of land that were sold for use for religious purposes, and churches had been erected thereon. The record also discloses that the developer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Deeble v. Rhode Island Department of Transportation
... ... 19 of the Rhode Island Constitution. Revised Agreed Statement ... of Facts ¶ 14 ... II ... Parties' ... Arguments ... Misischi, 111 ... R.I. 233, 238, 302 A.2d 79, 82 (1973) (citing Emma v ... Silvestri, 101 R.I. 749, 227 A.2d 480 (1967)) (holding ... that in order to ... ...
-
Estate of Deeble v. R.I. Dep't of Transp.
...the restriction was established"); see also Hanley v. Misischi, 111 R.I. 233, 238, 302 A.2d 79, 82 (1973) (citing Emma v. Silvestri, 101 R.I. 749, 227 A.2d 480 (1967)) (holding that in order to increase the free use and transfer of land, restrictions on land use are to be strictly construed......
-
DeWolf v. Usher Cove Corp.
...or extinguishment. See generally 20 Am.Jur.2d, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Secs. 268-87. See also Emma v. Silvestri, 101 R.I. 749, 751-52, 227 A.2d 480 (1967) ("It is well settled ... that where, in conformity with a general plan for development, the owner of property divides it ......
-
Belliveau v. O'Coin, 88-185-A
...238, 302 A.2d 79, 82 (1973); see also Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp., 111 R.I. 747, 750, 306 A.2d 806, 808 (1973); Emma v. Silvestri, 101 R.I. 749, 751, 227 A.2d 480, 481 (1967)). We believe that the covenant in question can be strictly construed to support both the principle of free alienabi......