Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Tax, SDIRAs & Cost Segregation
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated almost 3 years ago,

User Stats

1,578
Posts
683
Votes
Peter Walther
  • Specialist
  • Winter Springs, FL
683
Votes |
1,578
Posts

VA Supreme Court finds restrictions unenforceable

Peter Walther
  • Specialist
  • Winter Springs, FL
Posted

Here's a VA Supreme Court decision I found interesting and thought some of you might also. It goes to show why I doubt title insurance can ever be eliminated based on a blockchain type software program.

In the case of Wells v. Beville, the Bevilles purchased Lots 1&2 in a s/d.  The property was encumbered by several restriction including two that read:

 Lots 1and 2 shall be considered one lot.

Lot No. 1 herein conveyed shall not be sold unless Lot No. 2 is sold to the same person at the same time.

The Bevilles then sold Lot 2 but not Lot 1 to the Wells.  Sometime later the Belvilles contracted to sell Lot 1 to a third party and the Wells objected and attempted the purchase Lot 1 themselves.  The Belvilles refused to sell to the Wells and this suit followed with the Court finding in part:

The restrictive covenants at issue here, viewed in light of the appellants’ argument, suffer from a fatal flaw. Specifically, while the restrictive covenants expressly require Lot 1 to be sold contemporaneously with Lot 2, the covenants do not contain any reciprocal language requiring Lot 2 to be sold contemporaneously with Lot 1. Under the terms of the restrictive covenants, then, Lot 2 may be sold separately from Lot 1. Thus, the Bevilles did not violate the restrictive covenants when they sold Lot 2 to the appellants.

210469.pdf (vacourts.gov)



Loading replies...