Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Peters v. Nelson
Citations: 730 N.E.2d 1011; 134 Ohio App. 3d 224Docket: Case No. CA99-04-010.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; August 30, 1999; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Plaintiffs-appellants Gary L. Peters, Jerry D. Eck, III, Cheryl R. Eck, Larry R. Doty, Ruth P. Doty, Bobby L. Arthurs, and Beverly J. Arthurs appeal the Preble County Court of Common Pleas' summary judgment favoring defendant-appellee Marsheda Nelson regarding a restrictive covenant tied to a real estate parcel. The court's decision is upheld. The case traces the property’s title history from Albert and Laura Sandlin in 1945 to Frank and Stella Roberts, then to George E. and Hilda H. Shumaker in 1965. A key issue arose on January 21, 1967, when two deeds were recorded out of sequence, resulting in the Roberts retaining legal title to the property despite an earlier deed transferring it to Allen E. and Alice M. Seals. Consequently, the Seals transferred the land to Donald Sprowls and others, who later conveyed a portion to Henry C. and Ethel M. Spencer. This transaction included a restrictive covenant that mandated exclusive residential use and limited structures to one single-family dwelling. After subsequent transfers of the property, including to James and Joyce Nelson and ultimately to Marsheda Nelson, a dispute emerged when appellants contended that Marsheda's planned construction violated the restrictive covenant. Appellants sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Nelsons. The appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion in this ruling. Appellants argue that the property is still bound by a restrictive covenant limiting it to a single-family dwelling. For this covenant to be valid against a grantee, several conditions must be met: (1) the restrictions must be part of the general subdivision plan applicable to all lots, (2) lot purchasers must receive adequate notice of the restriction, (3) the restrictions must align with public policy, (4) they must be express rather than implied, and (5) they must run with the land and be included as covenants in the owner's chain of title to bind subsequent purchasers. Privity of estate between the original grantor and subsequent grantees is essential for enforcement of the covenant. A principle of Ohio property law states that if a seller conveys property they do not own but later acquires, the grantee holds an "estoppel estate," allowing possession without legal title. In this case, when the restrictive covenant was created, the grantor lacked legal title, which remained with Stella Roberts. Legal title merged with equitable title only when Stella and her husband quitclaimed the property to the Nelsons. The court concluded that the restrictive covenant cannot be enforced against subsequent grantees if the original grantor did not hold legal title at the time of the covenant’s establishment. While appellants cited a case suggesting equity could allow exceptions, the court limited that precedent to its specific facts and upheld the general rule requiring privity for covenants to run with the land. Consequently, the restrictive covenant is unenforceable against the current legal title holders, and the appeal was dismissed. Additionally, an unnamed defendant, John Doe, was not served and thus not part of the appeal, and the appellants did not file required assignments of error, though their issues were considered. Stella Roberts inherited property from Frank Roberts upon his death.