Booker v. Old Dominion Land

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia · Property

PropertyRestrictive covenantsChanged conditionsDeclaratory judgmentreal covenantsequitable servitudesgeneral schemeresidential restrictions

Facts

Old Dominion Land Company subdivided Parkview into residential and some business lots and sold the residential lots subject to identical covenants restricting them to dwelling houses and prohibiting commercial business until January 1, 1959. Plaintiffs bought two residential lots subject to those restrictions and later sought to have the restrictions annulled, claiming changed conditions had destroyed the original purpose of the covenants. They relied on nearby developments including a zipper factory on adjoining land outside the subdivision, a road across one lot leading to that factory, increased traffic on Route 168, a shopping center across the highway, and a skating rink on a lot marked business on the subdivision map. The evidence also showed, however, that the subdivision itself had developed in accordance with the original plan and that surrounding nearby subdivisions had developed as residential property.

Issue

Whether the evidence showed such radical changed conditions that the residential-use restrictions on plaintiffs' lots should be cancelled by declaratory judgment as no longer serving their original purpose. More specifically, the question was whether the whole development plan had become inoperative so that its objects could no longer be carried out.

Rule

When land is developed under a general scheme, reasonable restrictive covenants appearing in deeds to lots sold are enforceable by the vendor, vendees, and their successors in title. Changed conditions defeat enforcement only when the changes are so radical as practically to destroy the essential objects and purposes of the agreement; and where a party seeks a declaratory decree nullifying the covenants, more is required than for denial of an injunction—there must be proof that the whole plan has become inoperative and its objects can no longer be carried out.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2018, Maple Terrace in Richmond was created under a recorded development plan. Deeds to all residential lots prohibit commercial activity for 25 years, while several perimeter parcels shown on the original plat were left unrestricted. Nora Ellis owns a restricted lot near the entrance and seeks a declaratory judgment canceling the restriction because an auto-parts warehouse and two fast-food restaurants were later built on the unrestricted perimeter parcels.

Should the court grant Nora declaratory relief canceling the restriction on her lot?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that restrictions imposed as part of a general development plan remain enforceable unless changed conditions are so radical as practically to destroy the essential objects and purposes of the agreement. For declaratory cancellation, the showing must be stronger: the whole plan must have become inoperative and its objects can no longer be carried out. Here, the nearby commercial activity is on parcels left unrestricted from the start, which does not itself prove the residential scheme inside the subdivision has failed.