How have the courts interpreted the words 'unequivocally referable' to their understanding that all the lots in the subdivision, including plaintiffs', were subject to building restrictions?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Riley v. Bear Creek Planning Committee, 131 Cal.Rptr. 381, 17 Cal.3d 500 (Cal. 1976):

In the present case, both parties have performed acts 'unequivocally referable' to their understanding that all the lots in the subdivision, including plaintiffs', were subject to building restrictions. The grantor filed the plat containing the restrictions, and conveyed all subsequent deeds subject to those restrictions. The plaintiffs complied with the restrictions by submitting plans for construction on the lot to defendant committee, and by seeking approval of the committee for the removal of a tree from the lot. The only reasonable explanation for this behavior by plaintiffs is that such actions were taken pursuant to the understanding between plaintiffs and their grantor that the lot was subject to subdivision restrictions. The agreement between plaintiffs and their grantor can, therefore, be enforced despite the policy of the statute of frauds favoring formalized writings; indeed, other states have enforced such agreements. (See Hall v. Solomon (1892) 61 Conn. 476, 483--484, 23 A. 876.)

In summary, I believe that Werner v. Graham should be overruled, and that the evidence offered by defendants should be admitted to establish that plaintiffs took their lot subject to the building restrictions, which continue to bind the rest of the property owners in the subdivision, and that plaintiffs, indeed, conducted themselves in accordance with such restrictions for many years. To hold otherwise would defeat the actual intent of the parties; it would allow plaintiffs to reap the benefits of their neighbors' restrictions while, as to their own lot, they enjoy complete freedom.

Other Questions


How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the word 'court' as it is used to refer to the tribunal in which a defendant enters a guilty plea? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "significant" in the interpretation of the California Building Code? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "interpretation" in the context of a section of the California Workers' Comp. Act? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted a stipulation that a plaintiff must pay any fees that the court might order after hearing an appeal? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "judicial interpretation" in municipal law? (California, United States of America)
Does the court have a duty to provide amplification or explanation or amplification of a plaintiff's words or words? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word "reconstitutionally modified" in the context of Proposition 73's contribution restrictions? (California, United States of America)
Does a court-appointed interpreter have to be an interpreter for an indigent plaintiff in a small claims action? (California, United States of America)
Can a defense interpreter only interpret words of the witness interpreter at trial? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.