McCrann v. Pinehurst, LLC
737 S.E.2d 771
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pinehurst, North Carolina, was developed from land once owned by Leonard Tufts, forming the Village Green—a central 15-acre area.
- Pinehurst Inc. conveyed portions of the Village Green in 1982 and 1983 to Village Chapel, Inc. and The Village of Pinehurst, respectively, each containing restrictive covenants restricting buildings and use.
- In 1984 Resorts of Pinehurst, Inc. acquired Pinehurst Country Club with a deed conveying all rights and easements reserved or conveyed to Pinehurst Inc. or its predecessors.
- Pinehurst, Inc. was later converted into Pinehurst, LLC in 2006; Pinehurst, LLC signed waivers in 2008 (Village Chapel, Inc.) and 2009 (Village of Pinehurst) purporting to release the covenants.
- Plaintiffs, adjacent-property owners, filed suit in 2011 seeking a declaratory judgment that the waivers were ineffective and an action under § 75-1.1 for unfair and deceptive practices.
- The trial court granted both a Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings and a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; plaintiffs appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to obtain declaratory relief | Plaintiffs claim DJA standing as interested parties under deeds and common-benefit theory. | Plaintiffs are not parties to the deeds and lack benefit or interest; no standing. | No standing under Declaratory Judgment Act; affirm dismissal. |
| Standing to enforce as to appurtenant easement or equitable servitude | Plaintiffs contend covenants were appurtenant easement or intended to benefit adjacent property. | Covenants were not created for plaintiffs; no implied dedication or equitable servitude benefiting them. | No standing to enforce; covenants not shown to benefit plaintiffs. |
| Deceptive practices claim under § 75-1.1 | Waivers were deceptive because Pinehurst, LLC lacked authority to waive covenants on the property. | Resorts of Pinehurst, Inc. acquired Pinehurst, Inc.’s rights and conveyed easements; waivers valid. | Claim dismissed; waivers valid and not deceptive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Creek Pointe Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Happ, 146 N.C. App. 159 (2001) (standing prerequisite and subject-matter jurisdiction discussed)
- Taylor v. Kenton, 105 N.C. App. 396 (1992) (beneficiaries and covenants in subdivision contexts)
- Runyon v. Paley, 331 N.C. 293 (1992) (equitable servitude elements and intent to benefit)
- Long v. Branham, 271 N.C. 264 (1967) (restrictive covenants not extended to unintended lands)
- Mason-Reel v. Simpson, 100 N.C. App. 651 (1990) (terms of deeds interpreted as questions of law)
- Shear v. Stevens Bldg. Co., 107 N.C. App. 154 (1992) (implied dedication for common-use land through conduct)