{"id":513,"date":"2015-10-12T21:35:00","date_gmt":"2015-10-12T21:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=513"},"modified":"2023-12-15T22:00:53","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T22:00:53","slug":"developer-stopped-from-converting-golf-course-into-housing-by-implied-servitude-arising-out-of-marketing-the-golf-course-as-an-amenity-for-nearby-homes-previously-sold-by-the-developer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2015\/10\/12\/developer-stopped-from-converting-golf-course-into-housing-by-implied-servitude-arising-out-of-marketing-the-golf-course-as-an-amenity-for-nearby-homes-previously-sold-by-the-developer\/","title":{"rendered":"Developer stopped from converting golf course into housing by implied servitude arising out of marketing the golf course as an amenity for nearby homes previously sold by the developer"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>A developer marketed homes as being next to a golf course with the golf course noted on sales material and the recorded plat. When the developer later tried to convert the golf course into residential lots, the homeowners sued, claiming an implied servitude. Despite the lack of any express covenant in the deeds, the court found the presence of the golf course with the designation as a &#8220;golf course&#8221; to be sufficient to find the property restricted to golf course purposes.\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.wa.gov\/opinions\/pdf\/885753.pdf\" class=\"mtli_attachment mtli_pdf\">Riverview Cmty. Grp. v. Spencer &amp; Livingston,\u00a0<\/a>337 P.3d 1076 (Wash. 2014). Similar cases include Agua Fria Save the Open Space Ass&#8217;n v. Rowe, 255 P.3d 390 (N.M. 2011); Reagan v. Brissey, 844 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 2006).<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/easements\/\" rel=\"tag\">Easements<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/servitudes\/\" rel=\"tag\">Servitudes<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/statute-of-frauds\/\" rel=\"tag\">Statute of Frauds<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/title-issues\/\" rel=\"tag\">Title Issues<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A developer marketed homes as being next to a golf course with the golf course noted on sales material and the recorded plat. When the developer later tried to convert the golf course into residential lots, the homeowners sued, claiming an implied servitude. Despite the lack of any express covenant in the deeds, the court found the presence of the golf course with the designation as a &#8220;golf course&#8221; to be sufficient to find the property restricted to golf course purposes.\u00a0Riverview Cmty. Grp. v. Spencer &amp; Livingston,\u00a0337 P.3d 1076 (Wash. 2014). Similar cases include Agua Fria Save the Open Space Ass&#8217;n v. Rowe, 255 P.3d 390 (N.M. 2011); Reagan v. Brissey, 844 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[29,35,57,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-easements","category-servitudes","category-statute-of-frauds","category-title-issues"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}