Rickman v. Mobbs
In Rickman v. Mobbs, 253 Ark. 969, 490 S.W.2d 129 (1973), the supreme court held that the purchasers of land who had relied upon a bill of assurance for an adjoining subdivision in buying their property could not enforce its covenants because there was nothing to indicate any contractual basis for this reliance or that the bill of assurance was intended for the benefit of the owners of lots in their subdivision.
The court stated:
"While the bill of assurance is only one means of establishing a restricted use in a district, the understanding of the purchaser, or even a general or common understanding, that a certain restriction applies to a section or area is not a sufficient basis for enforcing that restriction, when the understanding or belief is not founded upon a contractual obligation. Moore v. Adams, supra[200 Ark. 810, 141 S.W.2d 46]. While there is evidence that appellants were aware of, and perhaps relied upon, the Holiday Park South bill of assurance at the time of their purchase of lots in Holiday Park, we find nothing whatever to indicate any contractual basis for this reliance or that the bill of assurance covering the Holiday Park South subdivision was for the benefit of Holiday Park or owners or purchasers of property therein." (Id. at 972, 490 S.W.2d at 131.)