## Facts

- Ruth Bragg Gaskins owned a four-acre tract on Ocracoke Island and conveyed portions over time.
- In January 1960, Gaskins conveyed to the Runyons a lake-front lot and a 15-foot strip to the Pamlico Sound.
- The next day, Gaskins conveyed the remainder of a sound-front parcel to the Brughs by deed containing recorded restrictive covenants, including limits to residential use and limits on the number of residences.
- The deed stated the restrictions were “running with said land by whomsoever owned.”
- Gaskins retained a residence across the road from the burdened parcel and lived there until her death; her daughter, Patsy Simpson Williams, later acquired that residence.
- Through later conveyances, Warren and Claire Paley acquired the burdened parcel subject to the recorded restrictions and, with a realty company, began building condominium units.
- The Runyons and Williams sued to enjoin the condominium construction as violating the restrictive covenants.

## Issues

1. Whether the restrictions in the Brugh deed were personal to Gaskins or real covenants running with the land for the benefit of retained property.
2. Whether Williams and/or the Runyons had the required privity and intended benefit to enforce the covenants against successors to the burdened parcel.
3. Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper as to each plaintiff seeking injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed in part and reversed in part the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The Court held the restrictions were real covenants that run with the land and were enforceable against successors who took with record notice.
- The Court held Williams, as successor to Gaskins’s retained residence, stated a claim to enforce the covenants.
- The Court held the Runyons failed to state a claim because they did not show their parcels were intended to be benefitted land and lacked the necessary privity.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner may convey property subject to reasonable restrictions not contrary to public policy.
- A restrictive covenant runs with the land only if (1) it touches and concerns the land, (2) privity of estate exists between the enforcing party and the party against whom enforcement is sought, and (3) the original parties intended the covenant’s benefits and burdens to run with the land.
- “Touch and concern” is satisfied when the restriction affects the parties’ legal rights as landowners and has economic impact; residential-use restrictions typically satisfy this element.
- Express deed language stating restrictions “run with the land” is strong evidence of intent to bind successors and benefit land rather than the covenantee personally.
- A successor to the dominant (benefitted) estate with vertical privity may enforce a covenant against successors to the servient (burdened) estate who are in the chain of title and have record notice.
- Adjacent or nearby owners cannot enforce a recorded restriction absent privity and evidence that their land was intended to be benefitted by the covenant.

## Conclusion

The court treated the residential-use restrictions as real covenants running with the land and enforceable against later owners of the burdened parcel, but limited enforcement to the successor of the parcel intended to be benefitted (Gaskins’s retained residence), affirming dismissal of claims by neighboring owners who could not show privity or intended benefit.


Runyon v. Paley, 331 N.C. 293, 416 S.E.2d 177 (N.C. 1992)