## Facts

- In the 1960s, Edith W. Leyland acquired approximately 75 acres on Mont Vernon Road in Amherst, New Hampshire, and lived on the property.
- Beginning in 1975, Leyland subdivided and conveyed portions of the acreage to various buyers.
- In 1985, Leyland conveyed approximately 23 acres to Margaret A. Shaff by warranty deed.
- The deed imposed a restriction stated to “run with the land” requiring that grantees “construct on said premises only a colonial-type residence having a market value of at least \$100,000.”
- The deed did not expressly reserve to Leyland any right to enforce the restriction.
- By 1998, Leyland had conveyed the last portion of the original tract and thereafter owned no real estate in or near the original parcel and none in Amherst.
- Shaff sought to develop her property and filed for declaratory judgment that the restriction did not limit the number of homes that could be built.
- Shaff moved for summary judgment that Leyland lacked standing to oppose the requested relief because Leyland owned no land benefited by the restriction.
- The trial court concluded Leyland would suffer no legal injury if the covenant were extinguished and held she lacked standing; Leyland appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a former grantor who has conveyed all property that could benefit from a restrictive covenant has standing to enforce the covenant against the current owner.
2. Whether, absent an express reservation of enforcement rights, a deed restriction stated to “run with the land” confers an enforceable personal right on the former grantor after she no longer owns benefited land.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Shaff.
- The court held Leyland lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenant because she owned no land benefited by the restriction and therefore could suffer no legal injury from its extinguishment or breach.
- The court applied de novo review to the legal conclusions on an undisputed record and found no genuine issue of material fact as to Leyland’s lack of any ownership interest in benefited land.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking to enforce a land-use restriction in equity must have standing, including a legally protectable interest that would suffer a legal injury from noncompliance.
- The benefit of an appurtenant servitude (or a covenant running with the land) is tied to ownership of the benefited land; it does not remain with a former owner who has divested that land.
- A deed’s statement that a restriction “shall run with the land” does not, by itself, create a perpetual personal enforcement right in the grantor after the grantor no longer owns any benefited property.
- Absent an express reservation, a former grantor who no longer owns benefited land generally cannot enforce the restriction because she cannot show the required legal injury.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because Leyland, having sold all property that could be benefited by the restriction and having reserved no personal enforcement right, could not show a legal injury and therefore lacked standing to enforce the covenant against Shaff.


Shaff v. Leyland, 154 N.H. 495, 914 A.2d 1240 (N.H. 2006)