Caullett v. Stanley Stilwell & Sons, Inc.

Defendant, a developer, sold property to the plaintiff in order to build a residential building. Defendant claimed to retain a right, by covenant to construct the residence. Plaintiffs sued claiming that this covenant was unenforceable.

Generally prerequisite to a conclusion that a covenant runs with the land at law is a finding that both burdened and benefited properties exist and were intended to be so affected by the contracting parties. When, however, the Burden is placed upon the land, and the Benefit is personal to one of the parties and does not extend to his or other lands, the burden is generally held not to run with the land at law. The policy is strong against hindering the alienability of one property where no corresponding enhancement accrues to surrounding lands.

Servitudes