A call this afternoon provided a bit of comic relief from a day that had otherwise been spent looking at microfilmed copies of 19th century correspondence between the Commissioner of the (Texas) General Land Office and various parties. The caller was concerned about the restrictions on her property that might severely limit her use and improvement of it.
At first impression, these highly burdensome restrictions appear to have been originally imposed upon the property:
1. There shall be no commercial feed lots of any description. This shall not preclude the breeding of horses for sale.
2. No mobile home, trailer, basement, shack, or garage, or other outbuilding placed or erected on this property shall at any time be used as a residence, temporary or permanent, nor shall any old house be moved onto said property.
3. No junk, repair, or wrecking yard shall be located on the property.
4. No part of said property shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish, garbage, trash, or other waste material.
5. There shall be no hogs kept on the property.
6. Each dwelling erected, placed, or permitted to remain on any of said property shall contain at least 700 square feet of enclosed floor area exclusive of porches, and each such dwelling shall be for single family residence only.
Definitely Texas. In Oklahoma most of those are requirements in restrictive covenants.
paden cash, post: 411228, member: 20 wrote: Definitely Texas. In Oklahoma most of those are requirements in restrictive covenants.
You probably noticed that renting pigs wasn't specifically prohibited.
Kent McMillan, post: 411274, member: 3 wrote: You probably noticed that renting pigs wasn't specifically prohibited.
As far as I know escort services are legal throughout the state.
paden cash, post: 411275, member: 20 wrote: As far as I know escort services are legal throughout the state.
I don't think I've ever seen a prohibition against using a basement as a habitable space in deed restrictions before, Come to think of it, the ground is rocky enough in that area that it would be a major project just to excavate a basement.
The last plat on which I prepared with restrictive covenants on animals included this paragraph. It was penned by the developer's socially degenerate attorney. The tracts were all 10 acres or larger.
"9. Two horses or two cows or two goats are allowed as long as the total number of large animals does not exceed two (2) per tract. No swine or other farm animals are permitted except chickens, ducks, fowls and swans in numbers not to create unreasonable nuisance. Dogs, cats and other normal household pets are permitted. Under no circumstances will any animals be kept or bred for commercial purposes."
ps - I thought "fowl" was pretty inclusive when it came to chickens, ducks and swans. But what do I know? I'm just a surveyor.
It sounds as if a client who breeds Aussies and uses Indian Runner Ducks to train them as herding dogs might want to steer clear of that subdivision.
My favorite restrictive covenant is one that is illegal these days. It banned the conveyance or use of any portion of the subdivision involving those with ancestors who may have lived on the continent of Africa. There are plenty of people whose ancestors lived on the continent of Africa whose prior ancestors came from England, the Netherlands and other western European countries.