Friends of Crooked Creek, L. L.C. v. C.C. Partners, Inc., 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 568

In 1992 C.C. Partners subdivided land in Crooked Creek, kept undeveloped tracts to build a golf course, recorded plats (1992–1995) showing lots and, in a 1995 survey plat, a dashed outline of an 18‑hole golf course and five large tracts labeled A–F.
C.C. Partners recorded a 1993 Declaration of Covenants referencing a “contemplated” golf course, including a hazard/disclosure clause reserving a perpetual, non‑exclusive easement to retrieve golf balls, but the Declaration also expressly allowed future conversion of golf course property to residential lots.
C.C. Partners conveyed tracts A–F to MacGregor in 1995 (deeds referenced the 1995 plat); C.C. Partners retained and later operated the golf course until financial decline and closure in 2015 and sought to subdivide the retained course land.
Plaintiffs (Crooked Creek lot owners and a homeowners’ LLC formed in 2014) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the retained golf course land is burdened by: (1) express restrictive covenants in the Declaration and (2) an easement implied by plats/marketing that the land must remain for golf use in perpetuity.
The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ summary‑judgment motion and granted summary judgment for Defendants; Plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Declaration imposed an express, perpetual golf‑only restriction on the retained property	The Declaration (esp. Art. XII §15 and definition of “Golf Course”) manifests an intent to burden the land to ensure the property is used only for golf	The Declaration is a disclosure/hazard clause and a reservation of a contemplated golf course, not an express perpetual use restriction; it expressly permits future subdivision into lots	Court: No express perpetual restriction; Declaration does not unambiguously burden the land and expressly contemplates later development, so no enforceable golf‑only covenant
Whether an easement‑by‑plat or implied dedication prevented conversion of the golf course land to other uses	Plats (and marketing as a golf‑course community) and developer statements created an implied easement/dedication for the benefit of lot owners that the golf course remain	The 1995 survey plat carved out five tracts (A–F) and was not referenced in plaintiffs’ deeds; plats did not create new lots or clearly intend to dedicate the retained land as permanent common area	Court: No implied easement/dedication. Gaither rule inapplicable because 1995 plat did not create lots and plaintiffs’ deeds do not reference that plat; marketing alone insufficient without a recorded instrument showing intent

In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 669 S.E.2d 572 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Long v. Branham, 271 N.C. 264, 156 S.E.2d 235 (restrictive covenants construed to effect parties’ intent and strictly against restrictions)
Marrone v. Long, 7 N.C. App. 451, 173 S.E.2d 21 (restrictive covenants require clear, recordable language)
Julian v. Lawton, 240 N.C. 436, 82 S.E.2d 210 (courts will not read limits into covenants beyond plain language)
Turner v. Glenn, 220 N.C. 620, 18 S.E.2d 197 (same principle on covenant construction)
Hege v. Sellers, 241 N.C. 240, 84 S.E.2d 892 (courts disinclined to impose restrictions the parties omitted)
Gaither v. Albemarle Hosp., 235 N.C. 431, 70 S.E.2d 680 (plat dedication/implied easement principle)
Harry v. Crescent Resources, Inc., 136 N.C. App. 71, 523 S.E.2d 118 (applying Gaither; easement‑by‑plat requires clear intent on the face of the plat)
Cogburn v. Holness, 34 N.C. App. 253, 237 S.E.2d 905 (deeds failing to reference plat showing amenity undermines implied dedication claim)
Shear v. Stevens Bldg. Co., Inc., 107 N.C. App. 154, 418 S.E.2d 841 (easement found where deeds referenced a plat showing a lake and developer representations supported dedication)
Reed v. Elmore, 246 N.C. 221, 98 S.E.2d 360 (restrictive servitudes are strictly construed)