Evans v. Pollock

Supreme Court of Texas · 1989 · Property

796 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1990)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyRestrictive covenantsImplied reciprocal negative easementsgeneral plan of developmentrestricted districtretained lotsnoticeresidential-use restrictions

Facts

The original owners platted Beby's Ranch Subdivision No. 1, which included lakefront lots and Block F, a hilltop block surrounded by lakefront lots. Over time, they conveyed numerous lakefront parcels with substantially similar restrictions limiting use to residential purposes, prohibiting business or commercial use, and allowing modification by a three-fourths vote of owners measured by frontage on the lake contour line. The owners retained certain lakefront lots in Block G and all of Block F, and their devisees later contracted to sell Block F and two Block G lots for a marina, private club, and condominium development. The trial court found that the developers' general plan was to burden all lakefront property, but not Block F, with the same restrictions.

Issue

Must a general plan of development cover the entire subdivision and all retained property before an implied reciprocal negative easement can burden retained lots? Or may the doctrine apply when the plan clearly restricts only a well-defined portion of the development, such as similarly situated lakefront lots?

Rule

For the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine to apply, there need only be a clearly defined restricted district to which restrictions apply as part of a general plan or scheme of development, with some lots in that district either retained by the owner-developer or sold without express restrictions to a purchaser with actual or constructive notice. The restricted area need not include the entire subdivision or all property retained by the developer.

🔒

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 a subdivision outside Tulsa, Olivia Mercer developed both riverfront parcels and interior meadow parcels. She sold most riverfront parcels with substantially uniform deed covenants limiting use to one residence and forbidding commercial activity, while the meadow parcels were sold with no such limits; she kept one unsold riverfront parcel and now plans to lease it for a bait shop.

Which is the strongest argument for neighboring riverfront owners seeking to enforce an implied reciprocal negative easement against Olivia's retained parcel?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a general plan need not cover the entire subdivision. It is enough that there is a clearly defined restricted district, shown by numerous conveyances with substantially uniform restrictions, and that the retained lot lies within that district. Here, the riverfront parcels may constitute that restricted district, so the retained riverfront parcel may be burdened even though the meadow parcels were unrestricted.