Implied Burdens Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc. v.

Bell Does a restriction for residential use apply to a parcel which Appellant uses for commercial purposes? Not all jurisdictions are willing to imply equitable servitudes from a course of conduct. California Courts decline enforcement of an equitable servitude unless it is described in a written instrument bearing the grantors signature. o Even actual notice may not override writing requirement. Most jurisdictions hold that the notice requirement for equitable servitudes can be satisfied by (1) a description of the restriction in a recorded deed or other recorded instrument; or (2) a reference in the grantees deed to a restriction set out in a plat map or master deed. Most jurisdictions agree with Mid-State The notice requirement can be satisfied by evidence of a general plan or scheme which a person could discern from inspecting the property itself. These may not be enforceable if the covenant is too vague. If the restriction is too vague because it fails to describe the affected land with particularity then courts usually rely on the Statute of Frauds requirement that written instruments affecting title to land must describe it sufficiently. RS (3d) of Property Implied servitudes and irrevocable licenses are treated as siblings. Both follow upon negotiations sufficient to create some kind of expectancy interest in land, but neither manifests sufficient formality to comply with the Statute of Frauds requirements for creating an interest in land. o For example, a servitude may not be enforceable (and terminable at will) if it doesnt comply with the Statute of Frauds unless theres an applicable exception: Consequences of failure to comply do not apply if beneficiary of servitude has so changed his/her position in justifiable reliance that injustice can be avoided only by giving effect to the parties intent to create a servitude. If injustice can be avoided only by establishment of servitude, the owner/occupier of land is estopped to deny existence of it when: o List pg. 719 Lalonde v. Renaud Broad/Unity Rule Lot owners acquire rights in all roads, streets, parks, and other designated ways shown on a plat map unless a contrary intent is affirmatively shown. Intermediate/Beneficial Enjoyment Rule The extent of the private right is limited to streets, alleys, or parks that are reasonably or materially beneficial to the grantee. When a plat map or other statements are ambiguous, courts become reluctant to enforce covenants. This is even worse when grantees base their claim on a promotional brochure/map or oral representations by a sales agent. o It may still be recoverable under promissory estoppel when an oral promise that land would be used in a particular way led someone to make expenditures in reliance.