Riste v. Eastern Washington Bible Camp, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 3265-III-5,3265-III-5 |
| Citation | 605 P.2d 1294,25 Wn.App. 299 |
| Parties | George J. RISTE, Respondent, v. EASTERN WASHINGTON BIBLE CAMP, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Henry E. Stiles, II, Lukins, Annis, Shine, McKay, Van Marter and Rein, P.S., Spokane, for appellant.
Richard C. Agman, Edward John Crowley Law Office, Spokane, for respondent.
Eastern Washington Bible Camp, Inc., owns land on Silver Lake in Spokane County. Part of the land was subdivided and lots sold only to people who agreed to subscribe to the tenets of the Assembly of God Church. In 1968, George Riste's parents contracted with Eastern Washington Bible Camp to purchase two lots. In 1974, when the contract was paid in full, at the request of plaintiff's surviving parent, defendant issued the deed to plaintiff Riste. Both the sales contract and the deed contained restrictions on occupancy and resale. Riste later attempted to sell the property contrary to the restrictions. Defendant Bible Camp refused to remove the restrictions and Riste sued for a declaration that the restrictions were invalid and for reformation of the deed.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Riste, holding that as a matter of law the restrictions were void, and ordered the deed reformed.
These restrictions state in part:
6. No residents or occupants of these premises shall conduct themselves in such a manner as to be in conflict with the general practises and principles of the General and District Council of the Assemblies of God. No building activities or work shall be permitted on these premises on any Sunday of the entire year.
8. The property described herein shall not be resold to any person without written approval by the SELLER or its agent.
Eastern Washington Bible Camp claims that a restriction limiting the sale of land to members of a church is reasonable and may be enforced by the courts.
Restriction No. 8 contains a direct restraint on alienation of land. The rule in Washington is that a clause in a deed prohibiting the grantee from conveying land to another without the approval of the grantor, when the grantor transferred a fee simple estate to the grantee, is void as repugnant to the nature of an estate in fee. As stated in Richardson v. Danson, 44 Wash.2d 760, 767, 270 P.2d 802, 807 (1954):
The great weight of authority is that where the fee simple title to real estate passes under a deed or will, any restraint attempted to be imposed by the instrument upon the grantee or devisee is to be treated as void, and the grantee or devisee takes the property free of the void condition.
An exception allows reasonable restraints that are justified by legitimate interests, such as "due on sale" clauses in real estate mortgages. Bellingham First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Garrison, 87 Wash.2d 437, 553 P.2d 1090 (1976).
Defendant Bible Camp asserts as error the failure of the trial court to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel. It argues that Riste acquired the property with knowledge of the restrictions on his and others' lots, and that the other purchasers in the subdivision bought their lots in reliance thereon.
The fact that Riste acquired the property with knowledge that there were restrictions and that the restrictions were common in the subdivision is irrelevant. This is a disabling restraint upon which there is a presumption of invalidity. It is upon public policy grounds that the restriction is invalidated. Richardson v. Danson, supra. The doctrine of equitable estoppel has no application in such a case.
Restriction No. 6 in the deed is also invalid. RCW 49.60.224, Law Against Discrimination, states:
(1) Every provision in a written instrument relating to real property Which purports to forbid or Restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, occupancy, or lease thereof To individuals of a specified race, Creed, color, national origin, or with any sensory, mental, or physical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
...law” and referring to “federal and state law against religious discrimination”) (emphasis added). Accord Riste v. E. Wash. Bible Camp, Inc., 25 Wash.App. 299, 302, 605 P.2d 1294 (1980) (finding the term “creed,” as used in the WLAD, to mean “a system of religious beliefs”). 5. Age Discrimin......
-
Short v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist.
...“creed.” As used in WLAD, this term has been interpreted as meaning “a system of religious beliefs.” Riste v. Eastern Wash. Bible Camp, Inc., 25 Wash.App. 299, 302, 605 P.2d 1294 (1980). 19.See e.g., Mich. Dep't of Civil Rights ex. rel. Parks v. General Motors Corp., 412 Mich. 610, 317 N.W.......
-
Vacova Co. v. Farrell
...56(e). A material fact is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends, in whole or in part. Riste v. Eastern Wash. Bible Camp, Inc., 25 Wash.App. 299, 303, 605 P.2d 1294 (1980). Unsupported conclusory allegations are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Stringfellow v. String......
-
Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church, 29049-9-II.
...concedes that RCW 49.60.224 prohibits restricting the sale of land to people of one faith or church. Riste v. E. Wash. Bible Camp, Inc., 25 Wash.App. 299, 605 P.2d 1294 (1980) (RCW 49.60.224 held to invalidate term restricting sales to people who "conduct themselves [in conformity with] the......
-
Table of Cases
...(1986): 8.7(3) Rissman v. Troupe, 107 Wn.App. 1002, No. 46204-1-I, 2001 WL 783742 (2001): 18.3(5)(e) Riste v. E. Wash. Bible Camp, Inc., 25 Wn. App. 299, 605 P.2d 1294 (1980): 1.7(1) Roberts v. Smith, 41 Wn. App. 861, 707 P.2d 143 (1985): 8.3(2) Robertson v. Wilson, 121 Wash. 358, 209 P. 84......
-
§ 1.7 - Restraints on Alienation
...based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sensory, mental, or physical handicaps. See also Riste v. E. Wash. Bible Camp, Inc., 25 Wn. App. 299, 300, 605 P.2d 1294 (1980) (provision in a deed requiring residents to "conduct themselves in such a manner as not to be in conflict with the......