## Facts

- In 1920, Herbert K. and Blanche Meyer Humphrey (with co-tenants) conveyed Lot F, Block 8, Turner Addition, Houston, Texas, by general warranty deed.
- The deed restricted the property to “residence purposes only” and barred any “store or shop” for selling merchandise or other commodities.
- The deed stated that upon violation “said land shall revert to the Grantors herein, should they so elect,” and also described the restrictions as covenants running with the land and authorized suit to enforce compliance.
- Decades later, Lot F was acquired by Jasper Galleries, Inc., which demolished the residence and constructed and operated an art gallery beginning no later than May 10, 1973, in open and continuous nonresidential use.
- In 1975, Jasper conveyed the property to Carolyn Fay, who continued commercial use and leased to The C.G. Jung Educational Center of Houston and Archway Galleries.
- In 1976, Humphrey descendants sued in federal court (diversity), seeking to enforce the deed provision as a condition subsequent and recover title to an undivided one-half interest in Lot F.
- After an earlier appeal on limitations, the district court on remand ruled for defendants on the merits, construing the deed as creating only a covenant, not a condition subsequent.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1920 deed’s residential-use restriction and “shall revert … should they so elect” language created a condition subsequent with a right of entry permitting forfeiture of title upon breach.
2. Whether, under Texas law and its policy against forfeitures, ambiguous deed language must be construed as a covenant enforceable by injunction or damages rather than as a forfeiture provision.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court construed the deed provisions as covenants rather than a condition subsequent.
- Because no condition subsequent/right of entry was created in clear and unequivocal terms, forfeiture and reversion of title were not available remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Texas law disfavors forfeiture of estates; deed provisions will be construed to avoid forfeiture unless the instrument clearly and unambiguously creates a condition subsequent with a right of re-entry.
- Courts interpret deed intent from the entire instrument; mixed “covenant” language and enforcement-by-suit provisions weigh against reading isolated “revert” phrasing as establishing forfeiture.
- If deed language is reasonably susceptible to a covenant construction, ambiguity is resolved against forfeiture, limiting relief to covenant remedies (e.g., injunction or damages) rather than divestiture of title.

## Conclusion

The court held that the residential-use restriction, read as a whole with the deed’s covenant framing and enforcement provisions, did not clearly create a condition subsequent under Texas law; therefore, the heirs could not reclaim title through forfeiture despite long-running commercial use.


Humphrey v. C.G. Jung Educ. Ctr. of Hous., 714 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1983)