Guillettes v. Daly Dry Wall Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Property

PropertyRestrictive covenantsCommon schemerestrictive covenantscommon grantorcommon schemereciprocal negative easementsrecord notice

Facts

A common grantor, Gilmore, sold lots in a subdivision to the plaintiffs and others. The Guillette deed referred to the subdivision plan, stated that the restrictions were imposed solely for the benefit of the other lots on the plan, and provided that the same restrictions were imposed on each lot then owned by the seller; the plan itself did not mention restrictions. The defendant later bought another lot from Gilmore by a deed that referred to the same recorded plan but contained no restriction language, and the defendant took without knowledge of the restrictions. The defendant later sought to build thirty-six apartment-type units, and the plaintiffs sought to enforce the earlier recorded restrictions limiting use to one-family dwellings.

Issue

Whether a later purchaser from a common grantor is bound by subdivision restrictions contained in an earlier recorded deed to another lot owner when the later purchaser's own deed does not mention the restrictions and the purchaser lacked actual knowledge of them. More specifically, the question is whether the earlier deed's language imposing the same restrictions on the grantor's remaining lots makes those restrictions enforceable against the later purchaser of one of those retained lots.

Rule

When a common grantor, by a recorded deed, not only restricts the conveyed lot but also expressly binds the grantor's remaining land by writing, reciprocity of restriction between grantor and grantee is enforceable. A subsequent purchaser from that common grantor takes title to part of the retained land subject to those restrictions, even if the later deed omits the restrictions and the purchaser lacked actual knowledge, because the earlier deed conveyed an interest in the retained land and was properly recorded.

🔒

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 Boise, Orion Development sold Lot 2 in a recorded subdivision to Nina Patel. Nina's recorded deed limited Lot 2 to single-family residences and stated that the same restrictions were imposed on all lots in the subdivision then owned by Orion. Two years later, Orion sold Lot 7 to Marcus Flynn by a deed that referenced the same recorded plan but said nothing about restrictions, and Marcus had no actual knowledge of any restriction.

If Nina sues to stop Marcus from building a four-unit structure on Lot 7, which is the best result?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that when a common grantor's recorded deed to an earlier purchaser not only restricts the conveyed lot but also expressly imposes the same restrictions on land still retained by the grantor, the deed conveys an interest in that retained land. A later purchaser of part of that retained land takes subject to the restriction even if the later deed omits it and the purchaser lacked actual knowledge. The plan's silence does not defeat enforcement. (Derived from Guillettes v. Daly Dry Wall Inc. (n.d.).)