Aldridge v. Overstreet

A restrictive covenant prohibiting the defendants from growing or receiving farm subsidies on increased corn and cotton bases cultivated by the plaintiff was unenforceable.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Troy Aldridge leased farm land from Eric Moore, and the contract contained a restrictive covenant. After Moore sold the land to Benny Overstreet, Overstreet Limited Partnership, and Wayne McKinnon collectively, “Overstreet”, Aldridge petitioned to enforce the restrictive covenant against Overstreet. The trial court denied the petition, granting summary judgment in favor of Overstreet. Aldridge appeals, asserting that the provision in the lease is enforceable against Overstreet as an equitable servitude. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s ruling. A trial court properly grants summary judgment “when no genuine issues of material fact remain and the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrants judgment as a matter of law.”1 Our review of the grant of summary judgment is de novo.2

Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that, in 1992, Aldridge entered into a contract with Moore, leasing approximately 800 acres of farm land. At that time, a portion of the farm land was eligible for federal farm aid. According to the contract, the farmer could receive federal subsidies for bases of 71.7 acres of corn and 47.9 acres of cotton. Aldridge and Moore anticipated that, over the course of the lease, Aldridge would increase the land farmed, thereby increasing the bases for federal aid. Thus, the lease provided that, upon termination of the lease, if Aldridge and Moore cannot agree on an amount to be paid by Moore to Aldridge . . . due to an increase in the corn base and cotton base . . . neither Moore nor his heirs, assigns, transferees, devisees, etc. shall allow said corn base or cotton base increases to be grown or participated in any government program. The contract was then recorded in the Atkinson County deed book.

Aldridge v. Overstreet

A restrictive covenant prohibiting the defendants from growing or receiving farm subsidies on increased corn and cotton bases cultivated by the plaintiff was unenforceable.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report