Evans v. Pollock
Texas Supreme Court
796 S.W.2d 465 (1990)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Hornsbys and McCormicks created a subdivision out of their property around a lake, partitioned the subdivided parcels between themselves, and subsequently deeded most of the parcels to third parties. All of the subdivided lots were lakefront except for one which was inland (the hilltop). All of the deeds from the Hornsbys and McCormicks to the lakefront lots contained the same restrictive covenants including a ban on commercial uses and a provision that the restrictions in the deeds could be changed with a 3/4 vote of the lakefront property owners. However, the hilltop remained undeeded until after the Hornsbys died when their devisees contracted to sell the hilltop to Pollack (defendant) for the purposes of building a marina and private club. Charles Evans along with other owners in the subdivision whose properties were subject to the restrictions (Evans) (plaintiffs) brought suit for equitable relief under the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine. The trial court held that the restrictions applied to the lakefront lots, but not the hilltop. The court of appeals reversed, holding that none of the lots were restricted because for the restrictions to apply at all, the original grantors must have placed restrictions on the entire subdivision. Evans appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ray, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
