require a common scheme or plan. See Pollock, 117 N.M. at 191, 870 P.2d at 153. A common scheme or plan may imply use restrictions, and that common scheme or plan may place purchasers on inquiry notice when the land has a uniform appearance and the property demonstrates a general plan or common scheme of development. Id. at 192, 870 P.2d at 154; Walters, 107 N.M. at 416, 759 P.2d at 208. However, in Defendants’ case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had actual, personal notice of the restrictions before they bought lot 224, and therefore the appearance of other lots in the subdivision was immaterial to the question of notice. When a party has actual notice, there is no legal need to imply notice from the existence of a common scheme or plan. io App.2d 45, 429 N.E.2d 1191, 1195 (1980) (<HOLDING>). 18. Most jurisdictions, however, recognize
holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that a statute relates to erisa plans for the purposes of preemption if it requires the plans to purchase the  benefits specified in the statute when they purchase a certain kind of common insurance policy holding that when guidelines contradict the plans requirements denial of benefits pursuant to guidelines was arbitrary and capricious holding that absent written or de facto guidelines to give notice to lot owners as to the kind of fence that would qualify for consent a statement that plans were not pleasing enough was insufficient ground to sustain an injunction holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice