Evans v. Pollock

The Hornsbys and McCormicks subdivided their lakefront property, deeding most of the lakefront lots to third parties with matching restrictive covenants (including a ban on commercial use and a rule letting 3/4 of lakefront owners amend the restrictions). One inland lot, the hilltop, remained undeeded until the Hornsbys' heirs later contracted to sell it to Pollock (defendant) for a marina and private club. Evans and other restricted lakefront owners (plaintiffs) sued to apply the same restrictions to the hilltop under the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine. The trial court held the restrictions applied only to the lakefront lots; the court of appeals reversed, holding that because the entire subdivision wasn't uniformly restricted from the start, no lot -- including the lakefront lots -- was restricted at all. Evans appealed.