Vernon v. R. J. Reynolds Realty Co. Et

• Decision Date: 31 January 1946
• Docket Number: No. 746.,746.
• Parties: VERNON et al. v. R. J. REYNOLDS REALTY CO. et
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

36 S.E.2d 710

226 N.C. 58

VERNON et al.

v.R. J. REYNOLDS REALTY CO. et

No. 746.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 31, 1946.

al.

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Zeb V. Nettles, Judge.

Suit by S. N. Vernon and others against R. J. Reynolds Realty Company and others for equitable relief against the burden of restrictive covenants contained in deed to property in a residential development. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Civil action for equitable relief against the burden of restrictive covenants contained in deeds to property in a residential development, heard on demurrer.

Eliminating all elaboration the complaint alleges: Skyland, a residential section of Winston-Salem, was divided and sold under a uniform scheme or plan of development which included a restrictive covenant inserted in all the deeds, expressly prohibiting sale or lease to Negroes for a period of 50 years. Plaintiffs and defendants now own all the property within Skyland. There has been no breach of the covenant by any property owner. When the property was developed and the lots therein were sold, all the property immediately surrounding and adjacent to Skyland was owned occupied, and used by white people only. At that time purchasers had no cause to believe that the surrounding conditions would ever adversely affect the desirability of the property as an exclusive white residential section. However in recent years the whole surrounding area for a depth of a quarter mile has been acquired by, and is now owned, used, and occupied by Negroes. This radical change in conditions outside but immediately adjacent to Skyland has made further sales of property within the development to whites impossible except at greatly reduced prices, renders the restriction burdensome, and causes plaintiffs irreparable damage. Even so, defendants, or some of them, still assert the validity of the covenant and insist upon its observance. By reason of the facts alleged the restrictive covenant should be canceled and annulled as a cloud on the title of plaintiffs.

When the case came on for hearing in the court below certain defendants appeared and demurred ore tenus for that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and plaintiffs appealed.

Ingle, Rucker & Ingle, of Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellants.

No counsel contra.

BARNHILL, Justice.

That covenants reasonably restricting the ownership, use, or occupancy of land, inserted in deeds as a part of a general scheme or plan of development, for the benefit of all owners of property within the development, are valid is conceded. 14 Am. Jur. 616. And plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of a covenant against the sale or lease of property to persons of a certain race or color or restricting its ownership or occupancy to persons of the Caucasian race. Eason v. Buffaloe, 198 N.C. 520, 152 S.E. 496; Grady v. Garland, 67 App.D.C. 73, 89 F.2d 817, writ of certiorari denied, 302 U.S. 694, 58 S.Ct. 13, 82 L.Ed. 536; Meade v. Dennistone, 173 Md. 295, 196 A. 330, 114 A.L.R. 1227; Annotations 9 A.L.R. 120, 66 A.L.R. 531, 114 A.L.R. 1237; 14 Am.Jur. 618.

So then the case comes to this: When the covenant was inserted in the deeds to all the property in Skyland as a part of a uniform plan of development, it was thought to be an advantageous restriction materially enhancing the value of the property for residential purposes. Thecovenant has not been breached. It has served and is serving its purpose. Even so, there has been a radical change in the complexion of the use and occupancy of all the property immediately surrounding Skyland so that now the restriction is more burdensome than beneficial.

Hence this appeal poses for decision one question only: Does a radical change in the ownership, use, and occupancy of the property immediately surrounding and adjacent to the restricted development afford grounds for equitable relief against the pleaded covenant when there has been no breach thereof within the covenanted area?

While there are decisions contra, the great weight of authority in this country answers in the negative. 14 Am.Jur. 615; 26 C.J.S., Deeds § 167, page 549; Annotations 46 A.L.R. 372, 54 A.L.R. 812; 85 A.L.R. 986. See also cases cited in Brenizer v. Stephens, 220 N.C. 395, 17 S.E.2d 471.

Decisions in this jurisdiction are in accord with the majority view. Brenizer v. Stephens, supra; Turner v. Glenn, 220 N.C. 620, 18 S.E.2d 197; Sheets v. Dillon, 221 N.C. 426, 20 S.E.2d 344; Franklin v. Elizabeth Realty Co., 202 N.C. 212, 162 S.E. 199; Johnston v. Garrett, 190 N.C. 835, 130 S.E. 835; Starkey v. Gardner, 194 N.C. 74, 138 S.E. 408, 54 A.L.R. 806. Cf. Humphrey v. Beall, 215 N.C. 15, 200 S.E. 918; McLeskey v. Heinlein, 200 N.C. 290, 156 S.E. 489.

The covenant is contractual in nature and creates a species of incorporeal property right. Sheets v. Dillon, supra. Its purpose is to preserve the covenanted area as a...