Swanson v. Green
Decision Date | 14 December 1990 |
Citation | 572 So.2d 1246 |
Parties | Charles SWANSON, et al. v. Charles GREEN, et al. 89-544. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wayne P. Turner of Turner & Wilson, Montgomery, for appellants.
Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., of McPhillips, DeBardelaben & Hawthorne, Montgomery, for appellees.
Charles and Mary Swanson, along with 32 other plaintiffs (hereinafter collectively "the Swansons"), appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying them a permanent injunction against the defendants, Charles and Annie Green and W.C. and Shirley Holladay. All of the parties are landowners in the Rolling Acres subdivision in Hope Hull, Alabama. The central issue is whether the defendants should be prohibited from operating commercial activities on their property because of a restriction contained in previous bonds for title on their property.
Truman and Woodard Luker, along with Epsi Dodd, formed Rolling Acres, Inc., in 1969 for the purpose of subdividing and selling lots on an 800-acre tract of land in Lowndes and Montgomery Counties. The Holladays acquired one lot in Rolling Acres on September 20, 1971, by way of a bond for title. That document contained a provision that read, "No commercial business shall be conducted on the property." They received a warranty deed on the lot from Rolling Acres on April 1, 1973; that conveyance, however, did not mention the restriction on commercial activity. The Holladays now operate an automobile repair business on their property.
Rolling Acres sold to T.S. and Emma Carpenter a lot through a bond for title on April 1, 1971, that contained the same restriction. The deed they obtained on the property on March 9, 1983, however, did not mention the restriction. The Greens purchased the Carpenters' lot in 1988 and received a warranty deed that also was silent regarding the restriction. The Greens now conduct a trucking business on their property. All of the above bonds for title and deeds were recorded in the Lowndes County Probate Court.
In denying the injunction the plaintiffs sought, the trial court entered the following order after an ore tenus hearing:
The Swansons argue that the Greens and the Holladays are bound by the restriction in their respective bonds for title and, thus, are precluded from conducting any business on their property. Specifically, they urge this Court to hold that restrictions in bonds for title are as binding as those in deeds. We decline to do so.
Black's Law Dictionary 162 (5th ed. 1979) defines a "bond for title" as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Czarobski v. Lata
...We note that several of our sister states have recognized fraud and mistake as exceptions to the doctrine. See, e.g., Swanson v. Green, 572 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Ala.1990); Croswhite v. Rystrom, 256 Ark. 156, 162, 506 S.W.2d 830, 833 (1974); Emerald Pointe, L.L.C. v. Jonak, 202 S.W.3d 652, 661 ......
-
In re Llc.
...test is said to be the intention of the grantor in creating the restriction.Id. at 390 (quoting Virgin, 233 Ala. 34, 169 So. at 713). In Swanson v. Green, the Court outlined the five methods of establishing a common scheme of development: “1) universal written restrictions in all of the dee......
-
Holdings v. Bank
...cases, this Court has refused to find an implied restrictive covenant. See Ex parte Frazer, 587 So.2d 330 (Ala.1991); Swanson v. Green, 572 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1990).”938 So.2d at 385. Through a discussion of several cases, this Court in Collins outlined the development of the law in Alabama re......
-
Walters v. Colford
...2.14, comment f. at 185. See, also, generally, Country Community v. HMW Special Utility, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App. 2014) ; Swanson v. Green, 572 So.2d 1246 (Ala. 1990).25 Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, supra note 11, 276 Neb. at 805, 758 N.W.2d at 387.26 1 Restatement, supra......