## Facts

- Paul Perry owned a residence in Metropolis, Erehwon, next to a home owned by his neighbor, Alice Adams.
- Perry and Adams both disliked cats and, in August 1990, entered into a written agreement stating that **no cat would be kept on either property**.
- The agreement expressly stated that the restriction **would run with the land** and would **bind and benefit future owners** of both parcels.
- The agreement was **recorded** in the public records and **indexed under both owners’ names**.
- In 1999, Adams died, and her nephew, Donald Davis, acquired a **life estate** in Adams’s residence.
- Davis kept **at least six cats** on the property.
- After attempts to stop the cats failed, Perry filed suit seeking **injunctive relief** to enforce the recorded restriction.
- The trial court granted an **injunction** ordering Davis to comply with the “no cats” covenant.

## Issues

1. Whether the recorded covenant prohibiting cats was intended to run with the land and therefore bind Davis as a successor holding a life estate.
2. Whether the covenant was enforceable by injunction against Davis, despite his not being an original party to the 1990 agreement.
3. Whether the covenant’s recording and indexing provided notice sufficient to enforce the restriction against a successor in interest.

## Decision

- The court upheld enforcement of the “no cats” covenant against Davis.
- The covenant was treated as running with the land because the parties expressed intent to bind successors and the restriction concerned the use of the land (keeping animals on the premises).
- Davis, as the holder of a life estate in the burdened property, took the property subject to recorded use restrictions and could be enjoined from violating them.
- Injunctive relief was an appropriate remedy to enforce the restriction and prevent ongoing violation.

## Legal Principles

- A restrictive covenant may run with the land when the instrument shows intent to bind successors and the restriction relates to the land’s use or enjoyment (not merely a personal promise).
- A successor in interest who takes an estate in land may be bound by recorded restrictive covenants affecting that land, including a life tenant, when the covenant is structured to bind future owners.
- Recording and proper indexing of a covenant generally provide constructive notice to later takers, supporting enforcement even though the successor did not sign the original agreement.
- Courts commonly enforce valid land-use restrictions through injunctive relief to stop continuing or repeated violations.

## Conclusion

The covenant prohibiting cats was recorded, written to bind future owners, and tied to the residential use of the properties, so it was enforceable against Davis as a successor life tenant; the injunction requiring compliance was therefore proper.


Perry v. Davis, 2013 Ohio 4078 (2013)