Suit fоr declaratory judgment was filed by Truett W. Flache, appellee, against Homer I. Nelson, H. W. Nelson and others, appellants, to determine whether appellants are such parties that have a right to comрlain of certain restrictions being removed from lots owned by appellees. The trial court entered judgment declaring that appellants have no right to enforce the restrictive covenants containеd in the dedication deed of the Flache Addition in the City of Brownfield, Texas. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The case was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury. Factually, the case is developed by both stipulation and testimony. Pursuant to appellants’ request, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the trial judge and are part of the transcript on this appeal.
The property which forms the basis of this lаw suit is the Flache Addition, located in Brownfield, Texas. On June 30, 1960, Lizzie Flache, the then owner of all the property in the addition, executed a re-plat and resubdivision of substantially all the blocks within the addition. The dedication dеed effecting the replat adopted restrictions and covenants to be applicable to certain numbered blocks, among which were blocks 14, IS, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. This appeal involves the enumerated blocks аnd lots enclosed therein. The essence of the restrictive covenants is embodied in the first covenant which states:
“1. No building shall be erected on said above described land except that it be for residence purposes, and no building shall ever be used as a place of business.”
The remaining restrictions and covenants contain refinements of the restriction to residential purposes, easements, term of the covenants and a saving clause. In 1969, subsequent to the dedication deed, the Flache family still owned a majority of the property within the addition. They determined to give blocks 19, 20, 23 and 24 to the hospital district to use for hospital premises. At the same time it was determined that thirteen lots should be released for commercial purposes. Eleven of these lots are located across the street and to the south of the hospital site and аre in the northern half of blocks 15 and 16. Also included are lots 1 and 2 of block 17 located southwest of the hospital site. The right to enforce the restrictions and covenants contained in the dedication deed, and which pertained to the specified lots, was released by all property owners whose property was restricted by *845 the dedication deed and these releases wert recorded in Terry County, Texas.
With the exception of those blocks given to the hospital district and one lot dedicated to be a public park, appellants purchased all of the lots which had been released for commercial purposes. At the time appellants purchased their property, they had knowledge of the fact that the right to enforce the restrictions and covenants contained in the dedication deed of the Flache Addition had been released by all of the owners of property subject to the restrictions within the addition. The deeds to appellants contained restrictive covenants restricting the use of their property tо commercial purposes.
Blocks 14, 21, and 22 are located across the street and to the east of the hospital site. These lots, owned at the time of the law suit by appellee Truett Flache, individually and as trustee, are within the Flache Addition which is covered by the dedication deed containing the above stated restrictions and covenants. Appellee has obtained releases on blocks 14, 21 and 22 of any right to еnforce the restrictive covenants from all of the owners of restricted property in the Flache Addition, but no release has been obtained from the appellants. This declaratory judgment action was brought by appellee against appellants for the purpose of determining what right, if any, appellants have to enforce the restrictions and covenants contained in the dedication deed.
Appellants’ first point of error sets forth their contention that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for the appellee because appellants are owners of lots within the Flache Addition and their consent must be given bеfore the restrictions upon that addition may be modified. This contention is premised upon the well settled rule that one owner in a restricted subdivision cannot modify the restrictions applicable to that subdivision without the сoncurrence of all the property owners within the addition. 16 Tex.Jur.2d Covenants § 119 (1960); Farmer v. Thompson,
The trial court in its conclusions of law one and two held as a matter of law that the defendants, having purchased their property after it had been released from the restrictive covenants contained in the dedication deed, were not members of a group of persons for whom the restrictions were imposed. Therefore, they were not entitled to have such restrictive covenants enforced against the lots in question. Appellants, in their third point, allege that the trial court is in error in these conclusions of law. We agree with the trial court.
It was a matter of public record that the lots purchased by the defendants had been released from the restrictions prior to defendants’ purchase of those lots. Well established is the principle that the owner of property may create a building plan by imposing restrictions upon the land that he owns and sell the property subject to those restrictions so long as they do not contravene public pоlicy. Bein v. McPhaul,
. . The purchasers of lots in the various subdivisions are charged with knowledge, ... of the terms of the 1946 dedication and of the rededicаtion applicable to their particular property. They thus are deemed to have known that the area in which they were buying had been rededicated and was being sold by the owners thereof under a plan thаt was at substantial variance with the original scheme for the development of Ridglea Hills. This was enough to suggest that the 1946 dedication had no application to their property and that the portion of Ridglea Hills in whiсh their lots lay was being developed as a separate unit. While the owners of part of the addition could not bind the remaining owners by releasing the restrictions, they could waive for themselves and their property the right to enforce the restrictions against other property in the subdivision.”
In the present case the releases given by all of the property owners prior to the defendants’ purchase were a matter of public record and, in fact, the defendants were well aware that the releases had been executed. Having purchased their property under these circumstances they are in the position of being an owner of property outside of the addition. It is well settled that property owners of one subdivision of an addition have no standing to enforce the restrictive covenants applicable to separate and distinct subdivisions. Jobe v. Watkins,
Appellants maintain in their second point of error that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for the appel-lee because they, the appеllants, paid an enhanced price for their lots based on their reliance that the residential use restrictions would be in force and effect upon the remaining property in the Flache Addition. Appellants rеquested no additional findings of fact or conclusions of law based on this contention and none were filed. They are therefore deemed to have waived any support a finding would have given them in their contentiоn. Gasperson v. Madill National Bank,
Our ruling as already stated herein also pertains to appellants’ other points and they are overruled.
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.