Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. 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 on . Most recent reply

User Stats

1,588
Posts
685
Votes
Peter Walther
  • Specialist
  • Winter Springs, FL
685
Votes |
1,588
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...