Tibbetts v. MICHAELIDES, 24 A.3d 581

In 1977, Lowell conveyed two parcels totaling five acres to J. Peter Trono, with a five-house restriction tied to the zoning ordinance then in effect.
Trono later conveyed to Trono Construction, Inc., which obtained a five-lot subdivision and sold the lots, including two to neighbors; the parcel on the east side Brigham Road was later tax-sold to Charlebois and then conveyed to plaintiffs in 2002.
Plaintiffs built a house after receiving a variance from the city in 2003; when attempting to sell in 2005, buyers discovered the five-house restriction and required consent from the other five lot owners, which neighbors refused.
Neighbors filed counterclaims seeking to enforce the restriction and an injunction; plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment to clear the restriction from title.
The trial court held the five-house restriction benefited Lowell’s retained land, not the conveyed parcels, and neighbors lacked standing to enforce it; on appeal, the court deferred to de novo interpretation of the deed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who benefits from the five-house restriction?	Lowell retained surrounding land; restriction intended for that land's benefit.	Restriction was part of a general development benefiting purchasers.	Restriction intended to benefit Lowell's retained land; neighbors lacked standing.
Do neighbors have standing to enforce the restriction?	Restriction runs with Lowell’s retained land; plaintiffs lack enforceable interest.	All purchasers in the development should enforce covenants for the plan.	Neighbors lacked standing.
Is the restriction part of a general plan development enforceable by subsequent grantees?	Deed shows general plan development; neighbors may enforce.	No explicit indication of a general plan; cannot enforce across all parcels.	Not a general plan development; not enforceable by neighbors.
Did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction to review the zoning permit related to development?	Proper channel for review exists; should be considered.	Record insufficient to review; issue not properly raised below.	Insufficient record; no jurisdictional ruling on the permit.

Patch v. Springfield School Dist., 187 Vt. 21 (2009 VT 117) (preservation and scope of issues in declaratory judgments)
Rogers v. Watson, 156 Vt. 483 (1991 VT) (intent to create reciprocal obligations in covenants)
Welch v. Barrows, 125 Vt. 500 (1966 VT) (development plans and covenants; implied benefits)
Creed v. Clogston, 2004 VT 34 (2004 VT) (general plan development constraints and benefit to property owners)
Chimney Hill Owners' Ass'n v. Antignani, 136 Vt. 446 (1978 VT) (land retained by grantor; benefit of covenants)
Madkour v. Zoltak, 2007 VT 14 (2007 VT) (intent in deed construction determining benefited estate)
Contegni v. Payne, 18 Conn.App. 47 (1989 Conn.App.) (covenant presumed for benefit of retained land)
Sofran Peachtree City, L.L.C. v. Peachtree City Holdings, L.L.C., 250 Ga.App. 46 (2001 GA. App.) (presumption of benefit to retained land in restrictive covenants)
Patch v. Springfield School Dist., 187 Vt. 21 (2009 VT) (precedent cited for issues preservation)