Real Property: Residential Subdivision-Indentures
Staff Report//August 19, 2019//
Plaintiff’s residential subdivision was subject to indentures that included a restriction that “only one residence shall be erected on each lot” and that other lot owners were entitled to a right of first refusal on a proposed sale. Defendant acquired a lot in the subdivision from the prior owner, who provided notice of the sale to the other owners 15 days prior to closing but failed to identify the proposed buyer. After closing, defendant proposed to subdivide its lots. Plaintiff sought to void the sale and enjoin defendant from building a second home on the lot. The circuit court affirmed the sale but enjoined defendant from building a second home.
Where the record supported finding that the original owner reasonably complied with the subdivision’s requirements for a right of first refusal, plaintiff’s efforts to void the sale constituted an abuse of process, but plaintiff could restrict defendant from building a second home on its lots pursuant to the indentures.
Powell, J, concurring in part and dissenting in part: “I respectfully dissent as to section V. B. of the principal opinion because I disagree with its conclusion that a restrictive covenant that states “[o]nly one residence shall be erected on each lot,” precludes subdivision of a lot within Clayton Terrace. Because nothing in the text of this restrictive covenant, or any other covenant governing Clayton Terrace, prohibits subdivision of lots, I would reverse the circuit court’s judgment enjoining 6 Clayton Terrace from subdividing its privately owned lot.”
Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Trustees of Clayton Terrance Subdivision v. 6 Clayton Terrace LLC (MLW No. 73772/Case No. SC87349 – 33 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Stith, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Hood, J. (Steven M. Cohen and Jeffrey M. Igou, St. Louis, and John Hein and Grant J. Mabie, St. Louis, for appellants/cross-appellees) (S. Todd Hamby, Gerard T. Carmody, Becky R. Eggmann, and Ryan M. Prsha, St. Louis, and Michael Clithero and Lauren M. Wacker, Clayton, for appellee/cross-appellant)
Latest Opinion Digests
- Insurance-Interpleader-Competing Claims to Insurance Proceeds
- Employer-Employee-Discrimination-Hostile Work Environment
- Criminal Law-Rape-Oral and Written Judgments
- Torts-Defamation-Official Immunity
- Real Property-Adverse Possession-Oral Agreement for Sale
- Domestic Relations-Termination of Parental Rights-Parental Unfitness
- Criminal Law-Violation of Order of Protection-Scope of Cross-Examination
- Criminal Law-Resisting Arrest-Sufficiency of Evidence
- Criminal Law-Post-Conviction Relief-Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
- Domestic Relations-Dissolution-Property Division
- Criminal Law-Assault-Self-Defense
Top stories
- Federal court remands dispute over insurance funds to state court
- SCOTUS News: State concealed-carry restriction violates 2nd Amendment
- $2.1M settlement reached for five educators injured in work-trip crash
- SCOTUS News: Court rules customs agents can turn back asylum seekers
- SCOTUS News: Justices shut down Roundup failure-to-warn claims
- Missouri Supreme Court blocks St. Louis recycling lawsuit
- Nearly $100M settlement reached in wrongful death suit
- Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District elects new chief judge





