Derrick owned a thirty-acre tract of farmland. As required b…
Derrick owned a thirty-acre tract of farmland. As required by law, Derrick filed a plat with the county planning board, but did not record it. The plat divided the parcel into eighty-seven one-third-acre residential lots. A one-acre strip on the eastern edge of the parcel that abutted a busy highway was set aside for commercial development. The plat restricted each lot to a single residence and banned all “non-conforming detracting structures or appurtenances,” including “free-standing flagpoles more than six feet in height, television antennas and receiving equipment of excessive size and obtrusiveness, and windmills.” The restrictive clause was put into the deeds of all the residential lots in the subdivision, except for the deeds to lots 23, 24, and 25. This oversight was due to an error by Derrick’s secretary. All the other lots had deeds stating that the restriction applied “to the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns.”Harriett purchased lot 24 and duly recorded her deed in the office of the county recorder of deeds. Derrick’s salesperson had orally informed Harriett of the general restrictions applicable to lots in the subdivision. A year later, a sports bar purchased the one-acre commercial strip and installed a large satellite dish. Two years later, Harriett sold her property to Betty. Harriett never mentioned any of the restrictions to Betty. Betty put a satellite dish on top of her house. Her dish was not as large as the bar’s dish, but it was obviously bigger than any of her neighbors’ modest antennas. The owners of fifteen lots in the subdivision sue Betty, demanding that she remove the dish.If the court finds for Betty, what is the likely reason?