In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a tenacre tract in the center that was designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the 10-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the 10-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes.""Assume for this question only that Joe, who purchased his lot from Max, has placed a mobile home on it and that Sarah brings an action against Joe to force him to remove it. The result of this action will be in favor of
Sarah, because the restrictive covenant in her deed runs with the land.  Sarah, because the presence of the mobile home may adversely affect the market value of her land.  Joe, because his deed did not contain the restrictive covenant.  Joe, because he is not a direct but a remote grantee of Oscar
Question: In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a tenacre tract in the center that was designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the 10-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the 10-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes.""Assume for this question only that Joe, who purchased his lot from Max, has placed a mobile home on it and that Sarah brings an action against Joe to force him to remove it. The result of this action will be in favor of
A. Sarah, because the restrictive covenant in her deed runs with the land. 
B. Sarah, because the presence of the mobile home may adversely affect the market value of her land. 
C. Joe, because his deed did not contain the restrictive covenant. 
D. Joe, because he is not a direct but a remote grantee of Oscar
Answer: