Riley v. Bear Creek Planning, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1976 · Property

17 Cal. 3d 500 (1976)

Updated July 19, 2026

PropertyEquitable servitudesRestrictive covenantsStatute of fraudsDeeds and recordingequitable servituderestrictive covenantcommon plan

Facts

In February 1964, Alpine Slopes Development Company conveyed Lot 101 to plaintiffs by grant deed. That deed contained no use restrictions and did not refer to any instrument imposing restrictions, and at the time of conveyance no recorded document purported to restrict Lot 101. Nine months later, the grantor recorded a declaration of covenants and restrictions for lots 72 through 116, including a provision requiring Bear Creek Planning Committee approval before structures or alterations could be made. After plaintiffs built a snow tunnel, the committee recorded a notice asserting a probable violation of that declaration.

Issue

Can defendants enforce a building restriction against plaintiffs as an equitable servitude when plaintiffs' deed contained no restriction or reference to a recorded declaration, and the grantor recorded the declaration only after conveying plaintiffs' lot? May extrinsic evidence of the parties' supposed understanding supply the omitted restriction?

Rule

Mutually enforceable equitable servitudes arise when the owner of a subdivided tract conveys parcels by deeds containing appropriate language imposing restrictions as part of a general plan for mutual benefit. If parties wish to create such mutual rights in real property, they must express them in the written instruments exchanged between them; extrinsic evidence cannot create an omitted servitude. From the recordation of the first deed effectively imposing restrictions on conveyed and retained land, later grantees taking with notice may be bound even if their own deeds omit similar clauses, but a declaration recorded after a prior unrestricted conveyance cannot burden property the grantor no longer owns.

🔒

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 Bend, Oregon, Juniper Mesa Development conveyed Lot 14 to Lena Ortiz by grant deed in March 2021. Her deed contained no use restrictions and did not refer to any recorded declaration. In December 2021, after selling the lot, Juniper Mesa recorded a declaration for the subdivision requiring approval from the Pine Crest Design Board before any exterior structure could be built.

If neighboring lot owners sue to stop Lena from building a detached workshop without board approval, which is the best answer?

Explanation. Mutually enforceable equitable servitudes must be created in the written instruments exchanged between grantor and grantee, or through a deed referring to a recorded declaration. A declaration recorded only after an unrestricted conveyance cannot burden property the grantor no longer owns. The developer's later intent or the existence of a general plan does not retroactively encumber Lena's lot.