Holdings v. Bank
Decision Date | 22 October 2010 |
Docket Number | 1091016. |
Citation | 61 So.3d 1012 |
Parties | HEATHERWOOD HOLDINGS, LLCv.FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK, Jonathan L. Kimerling, and HGC, Inc. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles L. Denaburg, Steven D. Altmann, and Nathan C. Weinert of Najjar Denaburg, P.C., Birmingham, for plaintiff.James R. Bussian, Robert H. Fowlkes, and Joshua B. Baker of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for defendant First Commercial Bank.Lee R. Benton and Amy M. Hazelton of Benton & Centeno, LLP, Birmingham, for defendant HGC, Inc.SMITH, Justice.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, has certified three questions to this Court pursuant to Rule 18, Ala. R.App. P.
In its certification to this Court, the Bankruptcy Court provided the following background information:
1 2
“Therefore, the following questions are certified to the Alabama Supreme Court:
To address the first certified question, we first provide a brief background of Alabama law regarding implied restrictive covenants. In Collins v. Rodgers, 938 So.2d 379 (Ala.2006), this Court stated:
938 So.2d at 385. Through a discussion of several cases, this Court in Collins outlined the development of the law in Alabama regarding implied restrictive covenants. See Collins, 938 So.2d at 385–93.3
In Hun Es Tu Malade? # 16, LLC v. Tucker, 963 So.2d 55 (Ala.2006), this Court stated:
“This Court has recognized repeatedly that an owner of property may adopt a common scheme of development for his property by dividing his property into smaller lots or parcels and conveying those parcels with uniform restrictions. See Collins v. Rodgers, 938 So.2d at 393 ( ).
“For example, in Scheuer v. Britt, 218 Ala. 270, 118 So. 658 (1928), this Court stated:
“ ‘ “Where the owner of a tract of land adopts a general scheme for its improvement, dividing it into lots, and conveying these with uniform restrictions as to the purposes for which the lands may be used, such restrictions create equitable easements in favor of the owners of the several lots, which may be enforced in equity by any one of such owners. Such restrictions are not for the benefit of the grantor only, but for the benefit of all purchasers. The owner of each lot has as appurtenant to his lot a right in the nature of an easement upon the other lots, which he may enforce in equity.
“ ‘ “Whether such restriction creates a right which inures to the benefit of purchasers is a question of intention, and to create such right it must appear from the terms of the grant, or from the surrounding circumstances, that the grantor intended to create an easement in favor of the purchaser.” 4 Thompson on Real Property, § 3398.
“ ‘....
“ ‘...
“218 Ala. at 271, 118 So. at 660 (emphasis omitted). Thus, Alabama has recognized that a grantor may create reciprocal negative easements by dividing and conveying his property in smaller lots or parcels if, in conjunction with the conveyances, he includes common restrictions in the deeds to some or all of those parcels. If the grantor so intended, those common restrictions inure to the benefit of all purchasers from that grantor.
“
“ Virgin v. Garrett, 233 Ala. 34, 37, 169 So. 711, 713 (1936).
“Thus, we must determine whether the evidence establishes that Clarence Beasley [the grantor] intended a common scheme of development.”
In Tucker, this Court cited the following five methods of establishing that the original grantor “intended a common scheme of development”: “ ‘ “1) universal written restrictions in all of the deeds of the subdivision; 2) restrictions in a substantial number of such deeds; 3) the filing of a plat showing the restrictions; 4) actual conditions in the applicable subdivisio...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Llc.
...part of that development and as an inducement to purchasers of the residential lots.” Heatherwood Holdings, LLC v. First Commercial Bank, et al., 61 So.3d 1012, 2010 WL 4148531 at *11 (Ala.2010). However, the Court emphasized that the facts of this case beyond those connected to the initial......
-
Hillcrest Optical, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-275-JB-B
...2017) (citing Smigiel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. , 785 F.2d 922, 924 (11th Cir. 1986) ); see also Heatherwood Holdings, LLC v. First Commer. Bank , 61 So.3d 1012, 1026 (Ala. 2010) (declining to answer a certified question where Alabama law was sufficient to guide the court in answering ......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thomas
...Title Guar. Co. v. Shelby Realty Holdings, LLC, 83 So.3d 469, 472 (Ala.2011). See also Heatherwood Holdings, LLC v. First Commercial Bank, 61 So.3d 1012, 1026 (Ala.2010) (declining to answer a certified question where “existing Alabama law is sufficient to guide the [certifying court]”).WIS......
- St. Clair County Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Pell City
-
CERTIFICATION COMES OF AGE: REFLECTIONS ON THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF COOPERATIVE JUDICIAL FEDERALISM.
...v Walker Stainless Equip. Co., 920 F.3d 1141, 1146 (7th Cir. 2019). (44) See, e.g., Heatherwood Holdings, LLC v. First Commercial Bank, 61 So. 3d 1012, 1026 (Ala. 2010); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 619 S.E.2d 597, 599 (Ga. 2005) (declining to answer certified questions in part......