Riley v. Bear Creek Planning, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1976 · Property

PropertyEquitable servitudesRestrictive covenantsCommon planequitable servituderestrictive covenantcommon plangeneral plan

Facts

Alpine Slopes Development Company conveyed Lot 101 to plaintiffs by grant deed on February 26, 1964, and the deed contained no use restrictions and no reference to any instrument imposing restrictions on the lot. At that time, no recorded document purported to restrict Lot 101. Nine months later, on November 25, 1964, the grantor recorded a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions, and reservations covering lots 72 through 116, including a provision requiring prior approval from the Bear Creek Planning Committee before structures or alterations could be made. After plaintiffs built a snow tunnel on Lot 101, the committee recorded a notice of probable violation based on that declaration.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs' lot was burdened by an equitable servitude for the benefit of other lots in the tract, so that defendants could enforce the later-recorded subdivision restrictions against plaintiffs despite the absence of restrictions or references in plaintiffs' deed.

Rule

When the owner of a subdivided tract conveys parcels by deeds containing appropriate language imposing restrictions as part of a general plan designed for the mutual benefit of the parcels, mutual equitable servitudes arise. But where an earlier conveyance is made without restrictions and without reference to any recorded instrument imposing them, a later-recorded declaration cannot create mutually enforceable equitable servitudes binding that previously conveyed lot.

🔒

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.

Sierra Crest Development subdivided land near Truckee, California. In March, it conveyed Lot 8 to Maya Ortiz by grant deed that contained no use restrictions and did not refer to any separate recorded instrument; no recorded restriction affected Lot 8 at that time. In October, Sierra Crest recorded a subdivision declaration requiring design review for all lots, and neighboring owners later sought to stop Maya from adding a detached studio without approval.

Can the neighboring owners enforce the declaration against Lot 8 as a mutually enforceable equitable servitude?

Explanation. Mutual equitable servitudes arise only when the subdivider conveys parcels with appropriate restrictive language, or at least by reference to an instrument imposing restrictions, as part of a general plan for mutual benefit. Where a lot was earlier conveyed by an unrestricted deed and no recorded restriction existed at the time of conveyance, a later-recorded declaration does not burden that lot. Notice from a later recording does not substitute for the missing restriction in the conveyancing instruments. (Derived from Riley v. Bear Creek Planning, Inc. (1976).)