Blissett v. Riley

Supreme Court of Alabama

Blissett v. Riley

667 So. 2d 1335, 1993 Ala. LEXIS 576, 1993 WL 196243

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 11, 1993

Docket1911225

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 So. 2d 1335 (Blissett v. Riley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blissett v. Riley, 667 So. 2d 1335, 1993 Ala. LEXIS 576, 1993 WL 196243 (Ala. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ADAMS, Justice.

This Court heard this case on oral argument on April 12, 1993. It was concerned mainly with whether the restrictive covenants in this ease could be legally considered encumbrances running with the land. Although the trial court originally considered this case on a motion to dismiss, the trial judge considered evidence other than the pleadings; therefore, he treated the motion as one for a summary judgment. The question whether a restrictive covenant is an encumbrance is a question of considerable magnitude, and this Court concludes that it must have a further development of the facts before it can issue a definitive opinion. Therefore, this case is remanded for the trial judge to develop the pertinent facts and to include in the record all relevant deeds, contracts, restrictive covenants, and other pertinent evidence bearing on the issue stated. If there are other issues that were not considered, the trial judge should fully develop those issues. The trial judge is to enter a full order specifying his findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the date of this order.

REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ADAMS, Justice.

This Court heard this case on oral argument on April 12, 1993. It was concerned mainly with whether the restrictive covenants in this ease could be legally considered encumbrances running with the land. Although the trial court originally considered this case on a motion to dismiss, the trial judge considered evidence other than the pleadings; therefore, he treated the motion as one for a summary judgment. The question whether a restrictive covenant is an encumbrance is a question of considerable magnitude, and this Court concludes that it must have a further development of the facts before it can issue a definitive opinion. Therefore, this case is remanded for the trial judge to develop the pertinent facts and to include in the record all relevant deeds, contracts, restrictive covenants, and other pertinent evidence bearing on the issue stated. If there are other issues that were not considered, the trial judge should fully develop those issues. The trial judge is to enter a full order specifying his findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the date of this order.

REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 So. 2d 1335, 1993 Ala. LEXIS 576, 1993 WL 196243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blissett-v-riley-ala-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack