Also known as: implied reciprocal servitude · reciprocal negative easements · implied reciprocal easements
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine under which a developer's conveyance of land subject to servitudes that implement a general plan of development creates implied reciprocal servitudes burdening the developer's remaining land within the plan when injustice can be avoided only by the implication.
Skyline Capital LLC subdivided a downtown block into lots around a central plaza and sold the first ten lots with deeds requiring ground-floor retail uses and plaza maintenance payments. Skyline later sold the final plaza-fronting lot to Metro Storage Inc. by a deed containing no restrictions. Metro plans a windowless storage building. The condominium association sues to enforce the retail and maintenance obligations against Metro's lot.
A developer platted ninety-one lots on Collingwood Avenue strictly for residence purposes and sold each lot with that restriction. The developer retained one lot and later attempted to erect a gasoline station on it. Owners of the sold lots sue to prevent the commercial use on the retained lot.
Defendant Christina McLean owns the west 35 feet of lot 86 in the Green Lawn subdivision at the northeast corner of Collingwood avenue and Second boulevard in Detroit, where she and her husband John A. McLean reside in a dwelling house fronting Collingwood avenue. In 1891 the subdivision was platted with lots on Collingwood avenue intended exclusively for residence purposes, and all 91 such lots now have residences erected on them. Robert J. and Joseph R. McLaughlin, who owned the Collingwood avenue lots, conveyed several groups of lots in 1892 and 1893 subject to restrictions that only residences costing at least $2,500 could be built and that they must front on the avenue. The McLaughlins conveyed lot 86 to predecessors in defendants' title by a deed dated September 7, 1893, that mentioned no restrictions. In 1910 or 1911 John McLean purchased the lot on contract, completed the partly built dwelling already present, and has since occupied it with his wife. At the time of purchase McLean reviewed an abstract showing the subdivision and its many lots, observed the expensive residences on the street all conforming to a uniform residential character, and was informed by his grantor that the lot carried no restrictions. The McLeans started to erect a gasoline filling station at the rear end of their lot. They and their contractor were enjoined by decree from doing so. The defendants appealed that decree to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
View caseA general plan supports the implication when the developer has conveyed some lots subject to servitudes that carry out the plan. The implication arises on remaining land within the plan if injustice to early purchasers can be avoided only by recognizing the reciprocal burden.
Supporting sources
No. The later deed's silence does not control when the developer has already imposed servitudes on earlier lots to implement a recorded general plan. Courts imply the reciprocal burden on remaining land to protect reliance interests created by the plan.
Supporting sources
Evidence includes a recorded plat or master plan, uniform marketing materials describing a coordinated scheme, and consistent restrictions in early deeds that implement the plan. These facts show the developer intended all lots within the plan to share the benefits and burdens.
Supporting sources
Yes. The doctrine focuses on the pattern of early conveyances and the overall scheme rather than language in every deed. Implication prevents the developer from defeating the expectations of purchasers who bought under the plan.
Supporting sources
…mandates. It originates for mutual benefit and exists with vigor sufficient to work its ends. It must start with a common owner. Reciprocal negative easements are never retroactive; the very nature of their origin forbids. They arise, if at all, out of a benefit accorded land retained, by restrictions upon neighboring land sold by a common owner.…