## Facts

- Dr. and Mrs. Lebold owned a residential lot on the west side of Kingwood Drive in Salem, Oregon (the “Lebold lot”).
- Mr. and Mrs. Willett owned the adjoining lot north of the Lebolds’ lot.
- The Lebolds and the Willetts also jointly owned Lot 11, located directly across Kingwood Drive on the east side.
- In 1957, the Lebolds sold the Lebold lot to Robert and Thelma Rodgers (plaintiffs).
- In 1959, the Lebolds and the Willetts sold Lot 11 to Rich and Joy Reimann (defendants) under a land sale contract.
- The Lot 11 contract contained a covenant limiting the elevation of any dwelling’s floor level: it could not be more than one foot higher than the Kingwood Drive curb adjacent to Lot 11.
- After purchasing Lot 11, the Reimanns began building a house on it.
- The Rodgers, who were not parties to the Lot 11 contract, sued to enforce the floor-level restriction and sought to enjoin construction as inconsistent with the covenant.
- The trial court dismissed the Rodgers’ complaint, and the Rodgers appealed.

## Issues

1. Can a neighboring landowner who was not a party to a land sale contract enforce a building-height (floor-level) restriction in that contract against the purchaser of the burdened lot?
2. Did the Rodgers prove (a) the restriction on Lot 11 was intended to benefit the Rodgers’ property and (b) the Reimanns took Lot 11 with notice that the restriction was imposed for that purpose?

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decree dismissing the Rodgers’ complaint.
- The Rodgers had the burden to prove that the Lot 11 restriction was intended to benefit their lot and that the Reimanns had notice of that intended benefit.
- The Rodgers did not supply sufficient proof of intent-to-benefit or notice, so they could not enforce the covenant against the Reimanns.

## Legal Principles

- A restrictive covenant in a deed or land sale contract may be enforceable in equity by a nonparty neighbor only if the covenant was imposed for the benefit of the neighbor’s land and the burdened owner took with notice of that intended benefit.
- The party seeking to enforce the restriction bears the burden of proof on intent and notice.
- Courts construe land-use restrictions narrowly; doubtful or ambiguous evidence is resolved against finding a restriction that runs with land for enforcement by third parties.
- Intent to benefit a particular parcel need not be expressly stated in the instrument, but it must be shown by a substantial factual showing; a restriction affecting a single lot, without a proved common plan or other strong evidence of a benefited parcel, is usually not enough.

## Conclusion

Because the Rodgers did not prove that the Lot 11 floor-level covenant was imposed to benefit their property, or that the Reimanns entered the contract with notice that the covenant was meant to protect the Rodgers’ lot, the Rodgers could not enforce the restriction in equity, and the dismissal of their suit was affirmed.


Rodgers v. Reimann, 361 P.2d 101 (1961)