## Facts

- A developer created a 113-lot residential subdivision and sold lots over many years.
- In the vast majority of the developer’s deeds to original purchasers, a covenant stated that no mobile homes, single or double-wide, could be parked or erected on the property.
- Some deeds omitted the restriction, including certain auction conveyances; corrective deeds adding the restriction were recorded for some lots.
- Forster owned two lots in the subdivision and sought to enforce the no-mobile-homes restriction as part of a subdivision-wide scheme.
- The Halls owned two lots; one deed contained the restriction, while the second deed (issued at the Halls’ request) omitted it.
- The Halls placed multiple double-wide manufactured homes on the lot whose deed omitted the restriction.
- Forster sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the subdivision was subject to an implied reciprocal negative easement prohibiting mobile homes.

## Issues

1. Whether a developer’s substantially uniform use of a “no mobile homes” restriction in most subdivision deeds created an implied reciprocal negative easement burdening all lots, including lots conveyed without the restriction.
2. Whether double-wide manufactured homes remain “mobile homes” under the restriction after being permanently annexed to the land.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the existence of a general plan of development and an implied reciprocal negative easement prohibiting mobile homes on all subdivision lots, including lots whose deeds omitted the restriction.
- The court reversed the ruling that permanent annexation removed the structures from the restriction’s scope and held the double-wide homes violated the prohibition.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of an order consistent with the opinion, including appropriate injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- An implied reciprocal negative easement may arise when a common grantor sells lots under substantially uniform restrictions as part of a general plan, allowing equity to impose corresponding restrictions on other lots within the plan.
- A general plan is not defeated merely because some deeds omit the restriction when the overall conveyancing pattern shows consistent, widespread use of the restriction.
- Purchasers are charged with notice of restrictions appearing in the chains of title within the subdivision and of a general scheme shown by the grantor’s conveyances.
- A covenant barring mobile homes “parked and/or erected” regulates the type of structure; a mobile home does not cease to be a mobile home for covenant purposes solely because it is placed on a permanent foundation or otherwise annexed to the land.
- Owners of lots benefited by a subdivision-wide scheme may enforce the reciprocal restriction against owners of lots burdened by that scheme.

## Conclusion

The court held that the subdivision was subject to an implied reciprocal negative easement prohibiting mobile homes on all lots and that permanently installed double-wide manufactured homes remained “mobile homes” under the restriction, requiring remand for injunctive relief consistent with that interpretation.


Forster v. Hall, 576 S.E.2d 746 (Va. 2003)