## Facts

- A Lake Travis peninsula was developed as Beby’s Ranch Subdivision No. 1, platted into Blocks A–G, with lakefront lots in Blocks A, B, and G and an inland “hilltop” Block F surrounded by lakefront lots.
- Two related families divided title: the McCormicks owned Blocks A, B, and C; the Hornsbys owned Blocks D, E, F, and G.
- The developers sold multiple lakefront lots with substantially uniform deed restrictions, including a ban on commercial/business uses.
- The deed restrictions included a modification/waiver provision requiring consent of three-fourths of lot owners, with voting rights tied to lakefront footage at the lake’s contour line; voting rights were limited to lakefront lots.
- The Hornsbys retained certain lakefront lots in Block G and retained the inland hilltop (Block F), which was not subdivided and carried no express restrictions.
- After the Hornsbys’ deaths, devisees contracted to sell the retained lakefront lots and the hilltop to Pollock for a marina, private club, and condominium development.
- Restricted lakefront lot owners sued, seeking to impose an implied reciprocal negative easement (implied equitable servitude) on the retained lakefront lots based on the subdivision’s residential scheme.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied reciprocal negative easement requires a general plan of development covering the entire subdivision tract and all property retained by the common developer.
2. Whether a general plan limited to a clearly defined subset of similarly situated lots (the lakefront lots) can support implied restrictions on retained lots within that subset.
3. Whether the inland hilltop block falls within the restricted district so as to be burdened by implied restrictions.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court rejected the rule that implied reciprocal negative easements arise only if the plan covers the entire subdivision and all retained land.
- The court held the doctrine applies if there is a clearly defined restricted district within a development, and some lots in that district are sold with uniform restrictions while other lots in that district are retained (or conveyed) with actual or constructive notice.
- The court agreed that the restricted district here was the lakefront lots, supported by uniform lakefront deed restrictions and lakefront-only voting rights to modify or waive restrictions.
- The court agreed the inland hilltop block was not part of the restricted district and was not burdened by the implied servitude.
- Disposition: reversed the court of appeals’ take-nothing judgment and remanded for consideration of factual sufficiency challenges to the trial court’s findings.

## Legal Principles

- Implied reciprocal negative easements may arise when a common grantor sells a substantial number of lots with substantially uniform restrictions furthering a general development scheme.
- The scheme need not extend to an entire subdivision; a “clearly defined restricted district” within a larger tract may suffice.
- Lots retained by the developer (or conveyed without express restrictions) may be burdened by implied restrictions if they are within the restricted district and the purchaser has actual or constructive notice of the scheme.
- Whether an implied servitude applies depends on evidence of the intended restricted district and whether the lots are similarly situated to those sold with express restrictions.

## Conclusion

The court held that implied reciprocal negative easements can bind retained lots within a clearly defined restricted district formed by a common development scheme, even if other parts of the subdivision are not restricted, and it remanded for further review while leaving the inland hilltop unrestricted.


Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1990)