Constitutional & Public Policy Limitations (on promises relating to land)

Question 1

Shelly v. Kramer

Answer 1

1945: An African American family (the Shelleys) (defendants) contracted to buy a parcel of land in Missouri that was subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting African Americans from living on the land. The owners of the property in question (plaintiffs) brought suit to enjoin the Shelleys from taking possession of the property. This case was a consolidated appeal and the facts of the companion case in Michigan were substantially the same.
r:State court enforcement of a restrictive covenant constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Sup. Ct- can’t enforce covenant

Question 2

Shelley v. Kramer

Answer 2

had ALL requisites In PRIVITY & INTENT of a real/restrictive covenant. (powell & bigelow requirements: promisors value decreased, promisee value increased, touches & concerns land) BUT violated 14th amendment so unconstitutional

Question 3

hypo: restriction is only sell to people who can pay cash (no mortgage)
(who you sell to affects market value)

Answer 3

restricting owners-yes
touches & concerns-yes
restatement enforceable-yes
if against law- NOT enforceable

Question 4

McMillan v. Iserman

Answer 4

New limit-Public Policy
Rule:an amendment to deed restrictions will not apply to a property owner that has reasonably relied upon deed restrictions in effect at the time of taking title, has dedicated the property to a use prohibited by the amendment, and would be injured by enforcement of the amendment.

Question 5

If a restrictive/real covenant violates public policy then…?

Answer 5

its not enforceable

Question 6

Stare Decisis

Answer 6

narrowest ground of decision is what court trying to reach & what stands for precedence (everything else is DICTA)