MICHAEL ABEL ET AL. v. CELESTE M. JOHNSON

Citations

• 340 Conn. 240

Syllabus

The plaintiff property owners sought to enjoin the defendant, who owned abutting property on which she operated a landscaping business, from violating a restrictive covenant that limited the use of the defendant's property to residential purposes only. The restrictive covenant was contained in a 1956 deed by which the original grantors conveyed a tract of real property to a housing developer, E Co. The 1956 deed, which was recorded in the land records of the city in which the property is located, provided that the covenants contained therein ''shall run with the land . . . be binding upon the grantee, its successors and assigns,'' and inure to the benefit of original grantors' ''remaining land . . . lying westerly of the premises'' conveyed. In 1961, E Co. recorded in the land records a declaration of restrictions, which included prohibitions against the keeping of poultry and the parking of commercial vehicles outside. E Co. thereafter subdivided the property and conveyed two of the lots to the parties' predecessors in title. The deeds in the parties' chains of title contained language providing that the lots were being conveyed ''subject to'' the restrictive covenants contained in the 1956 deed and the declaration. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had violated those restrictive covenants by operating a landscaping business and maintaining chickens on her property. At trial, the deeds to twenty-four homes located in the subdivision were admitted into evidence. The deeds to all of the homes located on the parties' street contained the same ''subject to'' language, and the remaining deeds in evidence all contained residential use restrictions, although two of them lacked the same ''subject to'' language. Relying on this evidence, the trial court concluded that the parties' properties were part of a common develop- ment scheme, which gave the plaintiffs standing to enforce the deed restrictions against the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment for the