The owners of a parcel of land in Princeton, N.J., appealed a lower court order granting summary judgment against them in an action brought by neighbors to enforce deed restrictions on their property and directing them to file a deed consolidating two lots they created through a subdivision.
The case is Kathleen Cherry, Jonathan Besler and Carrie Besler, David Huse and Julia Huse, Martin Kahn and Candice Feiring v. Ziad Hadaya and Nada Hadaya and Municipality of Princeton, N.J. (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, No. A-0384-19).
In 1028, three property owners conveyed to William Dempsey a 9.43-acre parcel in Princeton. The property was bounded by Jefferson Road, Cuyler Road, Ewing Street and land then owned by Walter Howe. Chestnut Street, later renamed Walnut Lane, crossed a portion of the parcel.
The 1928 deed stated any owners of the property agree they will not subdivide the Jefferson Road frontage of the property into lots of less than 150 ft. in width nor less than 200 feet in depth; that only single houses shall be built on the road and no house be nearer to the road than 50 feet, nor nearer to any party line than 25 feet.
Prior to 2008, the property was subdivided into 18 lots. A 19th lot is comprised of land both in the deed-restricted area and outside the deed-restricted area. All the lots were developed with one home.
In 2004, Ziad Hadaya and Nada Hadaya purchased the only parcel in the deed-restricted area with frontage on Jefferson Road. The property had 150 feet of frontage on Jefferson Road and 270 feet of depth on both sides. It was identified as Lot 4. Deeds in the line of title to the lot filed in 1953 and 1959 incorporate the restrictions in the 1928 deed. A title report on the property references these restrictions, but the 2004 deed transferring the property to the Hadayas does not mention the deed restrictions.
After purchasing Lot 4, the Hadayas applied to the Princeton Regional Planning Board for a minor subdivision approval to subdivide it into two lots, Lot 4.01 and Lot 4.02. This would permit them to build a single-family house on each of the new lots. The board approved the application in 2008. The 1928 deed restrictions were not discussed at the board meetings.
Lot 4.01 has 107.5 feet of frontage on Jefferson Road and a depth of 172.5 feet. Lot 4.02, a flag lot, has 42.5 feet of frontage on Jefferson Road and a depth of 270 feet. The deeds to these lots do not mention the 1928 deed restrictions.
In 2015, the Hadayas filed with the board a major subdivision plan application and a minor subdivision plan application, seeking to subdivide Lot 4.01 into two lots, Lot 4.011 and Lot 4.012. This would allow them to build a single-family house on Lot 4.011, Lot 4.012 and 4.02.
While the application was pending, neighboring property owners filed a complaint in state trial court seeking to enforce the 1928 deed restrictions on the Hadayas’ property. They alleged the deed restrictions created a neighborhood scheme which they may enforce. They also alleged the 2008 subdivision did not conform with frontage and depth restrictions in the 1928 deed and must be vacated.
On Aug. 14, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that the 1928 deed clearly and unambiguously prohibited the subdivision of Lot 4 into lots with less than 100 feet of frontage on Jefferson Road. The court further noted the deed restrictions on frontage had been honored by successor owners on every street in the deed-restricted area since 1928 besides the subdivision by the Hadayas. The Hadayas appealed.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
“We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that defendants’ strained interpretation of the 1928 deed restrictions as permitting a subdivision of their parcel into two lots, one of which has less than 100 feet of frontage, as long as both are at least 100 feet wide along their rear border to be inconsistent with the unambiguous intent of the original grantor to maintain minimum frontage requirements in the neighborhood,” the court stated. “The deed restrictions focus on road frontage limitations, which are a key component of the character of a residential neighborhood, and not the rear property lines of parcels in the deed-restricted area.
“We recognize, as did the trial court, that the Cherry and Besler parcels are not expressly encumbered with frontage limitations in the 1928 deed because they front Dempsey Avenue, which did not exist at the time of the 1928 transfer,” the court continued. “However, we find sufficient support in the record for the trial court’s conclusion that those parcels, which were subdivided consistent with the neighborhood scheme in that they had at least 75 feet of frontage – the minimum for the adjoining Cuyler Road, were intended to be incorporated into the neighborhood scheme. As noted above, Cherry has conceded that the 1928 deed restrictions apply to her parcel and, during discovery, defendants admitted that the restrictions apply to the Besler property.”