## Facts

- A developer, Wallace L. Gilmore, created and sold lots in a recorded subdivision plan (Cedar Hills Section I) in Easton, Massachusetts.
- Several deeds to subdivision lots included or incorporated single-family residential restrictions benefiting the other lots on the plan.
- The Guillettes’ recorded deed both (1) imposed single-family restrictions for the benefit of the other lots shown on the plan and (2) stated that the same restrictions were imposed on each subdivision lot still owned by Gilmore.
- Daly Dry Wall, Inc. later purchased a different subdivision lot from Gilmore by deed referring to the recorded plan but not mentioning restrictions; the plan itself did not mention restrictions.
- Daly, without actual knowledge of the restrictions and after a title examination, obtained a permit and sought to build a multifamily apartment building.
- Neighboring lot owners sued to enjoin Daly, alleging the lot was subject to the subdivision’s single-family restrictions.
- A master’s report was confirmed, and the Superior Court entered a final decree enjoining Daly from constructing anything other than a one-family dwelling consistent with the restrictions in the Guillette deed.

## Issues

1. Whether a recorded deed from a common grantor that expressly imposes restrictions on the grantor’s retained subdivision lots binds a later purchaser of one of those retained lots whose deed omits the restrictions.
2. Whether subdivision lot owners intended to benefit from a common scheme of restrictions may enforce those restrictions against such a later purchaser.
3. Whether the later purchaser’s lack of actual knowledge and the omission of restrictions from its chain of title defeats enforcement where the earlier deed was recorded.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the injunction enforcing the single-family restriction against Daly.
- The court held that the recorded Guillette deed effectively imposed the restrictions on Gilmore’s retained subdivision lots, and Daly took its lot subject to those restrictions.
- The court rejected Daly’s argument that it was not bound because the restriction was not contained in a deed within its chain of title and it lacked actual notice.
- The court recognized the subdivision restriction plan as a common scheme benefiting the other lots, enforceable by the plaintiffs as intended beneficiaries.

## Legal Principles

- A common grantor may, by recorded written instrument, impose restrictions on both the conveyed lot and the grantor’s retained subdivision lots for the benefit of other lots within a common scheme.
- When a recorded deed expressly burdens the grantor’s retained lots by reference to a subdivision plan, subsequent purchasers of those lots take subject to the burden, even if their deeds do not restate the restriction.
- Lot owners within the scope of a common scheme are intended beneficiaries of the restrictions and may enforce them against other lots burdened by the scheme.
- Lack of actual knowledge does not defeat enforcement where the burden arises from a recorded instrument that binds the land and provides constructive notice.
- Restrictions satisfying the Statute of Frauds may be created and made enforceable through clear, recorded deed language identifying the affected land by reference to the subdivision plan and the grantor’s retained lots.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a subdivision’s single-family restriction against a later purchaser whose deed omitted the covenant because a prior recorded deed from the common grantor expressly imposed the same restrictions on all subdivision lots the grantor still owned, creating a common scheme enforceable by other lot owners.


Guillette v. Daly Dry Wall, Inc., 367 Mass. 355 (1975)