## Facts

- Nancy Atherton Bishop owned a lot that adjoined a lot owned by William P. Rueff and Patricia S. Rueff.
- Both parcels were once part of a larger tract owned by George Imorde.
- In June 1957, Imorde conveyed a lot to Bishop by recorded deed that contained a restriction stating: “No solid board fence shall be erected” and “Fences … shall not exceed four feet in height.”
- Bishop’s deed also recited that the listed restrictions would “apply to and affect all the remaining property” of the grantor (Imorde).
- After Bishop’s purchase, Imorde conveyed additional lots from the original tract, but the fence restriction was not consistently repeated; only one later deed included notice of the restriction.
- In March 1962, Imorde sold the remaining larger tract to developers, who created the Trough Springs subdivision (11 lots) with separate recorded restrictions that did not mention the fence restriction in Bishop’s deed; deeds to Trough Springs lots likewise did not refer to Bishop’s fence covenant.
- In June 1973, the Rueffs bought a Trough Springs subdivision lot abutting Bishop’s property; their deed did not refer to the “no solid board fence” or “four-foot height” restriction.
- The Rueffs built a backyard patio and enclosed it with a seven-foot-high wooden slab fence, including a section placed on the parties’ common boundary near the side of Bishop’s home.
- Bishop sued the Rueffs seeking (1) damages based on alleged changes in waterflow and interference with use and enjoyment of her property, and (2) injunctive relief requiring the Rueffs to bring the fence into compliance with the restriction in Bishop’s deed.
- The trial court awarded Bishop $1,801 in damages but denied injunctive relief, finding the restrictive covenant in Bishop’s deed did not apply to the Rueffs’ lot. Bishop appealed the denial of injunctive relief, and the Rueffs cross-appealed the damages award.

## Issues

1. Whether the fence restriction contained in Bishop’s 1957 deed burdened the Rueffs’ later-purchased subdivision lot, even though the Rueffs’ deed and the recorded subdivision restrictions did not mention the restriction.
2. Whether the trial court properly denied injunctive relief requiring the Rueffs to modify or remove their seven-foot wooden fence as a covenant violation.
3. Whether the trial court’s $1,801 damages award for drainage-related harm and interference with use and enjoyment was supported by the evidence.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on both the appeal and cross-appeal.
- The court agreed that the restrictive covenant in Bishop’s deed was not enforceable against the Rueffs’ lot and therefore supported denial of injunctive relief.
- The court left intact the $1,801 damages award in Bishop’s favor and rejected the Rueffs’ challenge to that award.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants are construed narrowly; courts will not extend a restriction to other land by implication when recorded instruments and conveyances do not clearly show it applies.
- A statement in one deed that restrictions will apply to the grantor’s “remaining property” is not enough, by itself, to impose the restriction on later-conveyed parcels where later deeds and recorded subdivision documents do not reflect a consistent plan.
- Enforcement of restrictions against other parcels based on a claimed general plan (reciprocal restrictions) requires proof of a clear, uniform scheme reflected in the conveyancing pattern and recorded documents.
- A purchaser generally is not charged with constructive notice of a restriction that does not appear in the purchaser’s chain of title or in the recorded subdivision restrictions governing the purchased lot.

## Conclusion

Because the Rueffs bought their subdivision lot without deed or subdivision-record notice of Bishop’s fence covenant and the record did not show a uniform, consistently applied plan carrying that covenant into the Trough Springs lots, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s refusal to order the Rueffs’ fence brought into compliance, while also affirming the $1,801 damages award for proven harm.


Bishop v. Rueff, 619 S.W.2d 718 (1981)