## Facts

- A residential subdivision in Bennington, Vermont was developed from a larger parcel and conveyed through multiple deeds.
- In 1963, Gerald and Kay Watson bought an initial lot in the subdivision by deed that contained no restrictive covenants.
- After that sale, many subdivision lots were conveyed subject to a written restriction requiring the grantor’s written approval before any “mobile home, trailer, or other similar structure” could be placed or maintained.
- In 1977, Edwina Bard conveyed an adjacent lot to Charles and Hazel Wilkinson by deed containing the mobile-home restriction.
- In 1981, the Wilkinsons subdivided their lot and sold a portion to the Watsons; the Wilkinson-to-Watson deed omitted the mobile-home restriction.
- The Watsons placed a mobile home on the parcel acquired from the Wilkinsons.
- Neighboring landowners sought injunctive relief, alleging the mobile home violated the recorded restriction applicable to the Wilkinson parcel and that the placement violated state subdivision regulations.
- The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) was joined and cross-claimed to enforce the subdivision regulations; the trial court ordered removal of the mobile home, imposed a fine, and granted injunctive relief for regulatory noncompliance.

## Issues

1. Whether a deed restriction prohibiting mobile homes, contained in the grantor-to-predecessor deed and part of an alleged subdivision-wide plan, ran with the land and bound the Watsons despite omission from their deed.
2. Whether ANR could enforce subdivision regulations against the Watsons, including whether the regulations were validly in effect through legislative ratification.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- The mobile-home restriction ran with the land and was enforceable against the Watsons, notwithstanding its omission from the Wilkinson-to-Watson deed.
- The court upheld ANR’s enforcement authority and the validity and applicability of the subdivision regulations, affirming the fine and related injunctive orders.

## Legal Principles

- A real covenant may run with the land when it is written, touches and concerns the land, there is privity of estate, and the original parties intended it to bind successors.
- Intent that a restriction run with the land may be shown by a consistent pattern of similar restrictions in a subdivision, supporting enforcement under a general plan or common scheme.
- A restriction recorded in the chain of title can bind successors even if a subsequent deed omits the restriction; omission does not extinguish an existing burden intended to run with the land.
- Lot owners within a subdivision subject to a common scheme may have standing to enforce restrictions benefiting their properties.
- Legislative “ratification” giving regulations “full force and effect” can operate as enactment of those regulations, confirming their validity and supporting administrative enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court held that the recorded mobile-home restriction, implemented as part of a subdivision-wide plan, bound successor owners even though their deed omitted the covenant, and it sustained ANR’s enforcement of subdivision regulations that the legislature had ratified as having full force and effect.


Rogers v. Watson, 156 Vt. 483, 594 A.2d 409 (Vt. 1991)