Forster v. Hall

576 S.E.2d 746 (2003)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Forster v. Hall

Virginia Supreme Court
576 S.E.2d 746 (2003)

LJ

Facts

In August 1978, Goose Creek Partnership acquired land located in Tazewell County, Virginia. The land was platted as five sections to establish the Goose Creek Estates residential subdivision. Sections one, two, and three did not contain any restrictive covenants. Sections four and five contained restrictive covenants pertaining to water and sewer service. However, when the lots were sold, each deed contained a restrictive covenant prohibiting mobile homes from being parked or erected on the property. In 1994 James and Joyce Hall (defendants) purchased a lot in the subdivision, and the deed contained a restriction prohibiting mobile homes. In 1996 Richard Forster (plaintiff) purchased a lot from Thomas and Angela Kelly. The deed from Goose Creek Partnership to the Kellys contained a restriction prohibiting mobile homes. Forster then purchased a second lot in the subdivision by auction. The original deed from the auction did not contain a restriction prohibiting mobile homes. However, a corrective deed containing the restriction was recorded shortly thereafter. The Halls also purchased a second lot in the subdivision by auction. The Halls expressly requested that the deed from the auction not contain the restriction against mobile homes, and the conveyance was made without the restriction. In 1997 the Halls utilized their second lot for mobile homes. Forster filed a complaint against the Halls in Tazewell County Circuit Court, seeking a determination that the lots were subject to an implied reciprocal negative easement and that the restriction could be enforced by any lot owner within the subdivision. Forster also sought injunctive relief. The Halls denied that their lot was subject to an implied negative reciprocal easement. The chancellor found that an implied reciprocal negative easement was established for all the lots in the subdivision, and the Halls appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Koontz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership