Deed Restrictions

[Hopeful]

I have looked a several small properties (3-20 acres) to purchase. These properties are all outside any city limits by 5 or more miles. Most all of them have restrictions on the deed such as no mobile homes, no modulars, no unlicensed vehicles, no livestock etc. Several also have deed restrictions as to what size of home you can build, as well as the person you buy it from has the right to approve all building plans, fencing plans etc. These are not homeowners association type things, just individuals who own property and are selling it off a few acres at a time. I have checked with the County Commission of my county and they tell me there are NO COUNTY laws/ordinances prohibiting mobile homes, livestock and so on, on any property outside of the city limits.

My questions are. How can a previous owner(s) of a piece of property have any say over what you do with that property once you have paid for it and own it out right? I'm told by the realtors that it doesn't matter if the restriction was placed on there 50 years ago and the property has been sold 10 times that person still has say over it.

And what statues of the state of Missouri dictate the law(s) regarding the enforcement of such restrictions?

Thanks for your input.

 

[fredrikklaw]

Property; Wills; Trusts

These are restrictions and conditions (condition subsequent in your case) put in place by the original owner when conveying the property eons ago and the city or municipality have nothing to do with them. In Property Law, they are known as doctrines of "servitudes running to the successor" and "covenants running with the land," both of which come under the heading of Restraints on Alienation.

This will then take you into another bewilderingly complex realm of wills and trusts which pains me to even think about. But restraints and restrictions on properties are frequently contested with some being declared as invalid and in other cases, the buyer finds himself bound by a promise he never made.

This is one occasion when a wills and trust attorney truly earns every penny of his or her fee!

 

[jharris352]

Fredriklaw, I'm glad you answered this question because I had some ideas but wasn't sure of the answer. Will a simple quiet title action lie in this case? Could one try to say restrictions are out of date or unnecessary?

I remember one such Wills and Estate case in Winston-Salem, NC where the land that became Tanglewood Park was originally willed to the County or City for use as a Park, but there was a restriction that no "negroes" could be on the property. Of course it the restriction was contested as being "against public policy" and it was quickly struck down.

My question to you is: these must be Probate type actions and not Quiet title actions? Thanks for the great information.

 

[fredrikklaw]

Caveat empor!

Jharris352:

You're of course quite correct about restriction(s) on land being invalidated if it (they) is deemed to be against Public Policy with the Salem case a prime case in point; and arguments that restrictions are either out of date or unnecessary are unfortunately not persuasive.

Referred to as a Testator's desire to rule (or control) from the grave and as a whole, courts do not look favorably on restraints on alienation placed on properties since it has a negative affect on commerce by hampering its fluidity and promoting market stagnation. An action to Quiet Title will not suffice either in this case unless it is to acquire title to the property by way of Adverse Possession.

And as if things weren't complicated enough, the fact that the "sellers are individuals who are selling the property a few acres at a time" should send Hopeful running for the nearest exit. What that says in all probability is that the property in question was conveyed to more than one person who are called Tenants in Common and the property was partitioned; allowing one Tenant to sell his or her share of the property. Hence, one acre sold here and one sold over there; in bits and pieces.

Last but not least, probate takes place when a property owner dies intestate; which is just a fancy way of saying that the person had no will so the state will decided who gets what.

Hope it makes a little sense!

fredrikklaw