## Facts

- A residential subdivision known as Westmoreland, consisting of roughly 320 lots, was developed under a common grantor’s plan reflected on a recorded 1907 map.
- As part of the subdivision’s development scheme, the common grantor imposed private restrictive covenants (the “Rickert–Finlay agreements”) intended to benefit lots within the subdivision.
- One covenant required that buildings be set back at least 20 feet from the front line of each lot.
- The setback covenant appeared in the developer’s chain of title, placing the developer on notice.
- A homeowners’ association was formed to maintain the subdivision and enforce its covenants; membership was automatic for owners or residents in the area.
- A developer owned six contiguous lots configured as three double-lot building sites and began constructing three single-family homes.
- The developer built the homes with 15-foot front-yard setbacks, contrary to the 20-foot setback covenant.
- The association sued for injunctive relief to halt construction and enforce the setback restriction.

## Issues

1. Whether a homeowners’ association that does not own the benefited or burdened lots has standing to sue to enforce restrictive covenants running with the land on behalf of the subdivision’s owners.
2. Whether an injunction enforcing a 20-foot setback covenant was proper where the covenant was part of a general development scheme, appeared in the developer’s chain of title, and the violation was clear.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment granting injunctive relief.
- The court held the homeowners’ association had standing to enforce the restrictive covenants.
- The court held the injunction enforcing the 20-foot setback covenant was properly granted because the covenant was valid, the developer had notice through its chain of title, and construction violated the restriction.

## Legal Principles

- A homeowners’ association may have standing to enforce restrictive covenants running with the land when it is formed to advance owners’ common property interests and is closely identified with the landowners it represents, even if the association does not hold fee title to the lots.
- Restrictive covenants imposed as part of a general subdivision scheme and appearing in the chain of title are enforceable in equity against a party with notice.
- Where a setback restriction is plainly violated and no sufficient equitable defense is shown, injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy to enforce the covenant.

## Conclusion

The court upheld injunctive enforcement of a subdivision setback covenant and recognized that a homeowners’ association closely identified with, and representative of, subdivision owners may sue to enforce covenants running with the land despite lacking direct ownership of the lots.


Westmoreland Ass'n, Inc. v. West Cutter Estates, Ltd., 174 A.D.2d 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1992)