Covenants Flashcards
Creation
- born bc the scope of negative easements was so narrow, and ppl wanted to restrict the use of land.
- dif b/w cov and ES is one is in law and one is in equity - they do the same thing.
Sanborn v. McLean
Facts
McLeans owned lot that originally belonged to an individual who at the time owned all the other lots comprising the immediate neighborhood. 53 of the 91 lots were burdened w restrictive covenants expressly providing all structures be built for residential purposes only. Defs deed did not have this restriction. McLean buys and starts to build a gas station, neighbors see and sue to remove construction bc they felt restriction applied to all 91 lots, and that he had notice of this restriction.
Sanborn v. McLean
Holding/Reasoning
The restriction is implied on all lots. There was a common grantor who had a general plan for development that they be used only for residential use. Once grantor started this, all remaining lots he had not yet conveyed are subject to this restriction.
Def had notice because he could not avoid noting the uniform lots showing a general plan. He was put on inquiry notice - should have noticed the expensive residential properties and researched to find that there actually was a restriction.
Sanborn v. McLean
Rules
(1) if the owner of 2 or more lots so situated as to bear relation to one another sells one with restrictions of benefit to the land retained, the servitude becomes mutual and during the period of restraint, the owner of the lots retained can do nothing forbidden to the owner of the lot sold.
(2) upholding original intent of landowner - as long as a general plan was intended, the notice requirement is probably satisfied. If you look at your deed and there are no restrictions, you still need to ask as many qs as possible and get ur own survey
Discriminatory Covs
persistent issue in real estate transactions of covs on land that discriminate on basis of race, color, gender, sexual pref.
Shelley v. Kramer
Facts
Shelleys bought a house in St. Louis in 1945 on a plot where there was a restrictive covenant against any race other than whites living there. for restrictive covs to be unconstitutional, they have to done by the state and here we were dealing w private property. There was an argument that the covs did not forbid ownership on basis of race, but occupancy and use.
Shelley v. Kramer
Holding
Bc the MO and MI courts enforced this restrictive cov, the court enforcement was the state action and such enforcement violated the 14th. States may not allow private individuals to deny property rights on the basis of discrimination.
Western Land v. Truskolaski
Facts
Western subdivided 40 acres to create Southland Heights. They contained restrictive covs in deed saying the lots must only be used for single family dwellings. Years later, the population in the town goes up, traffic in increases and increased commercial development. The main road was expanded from 2 to 4 lanes and the land became busy and noisy. Western wants to build a shopping center and rezone 3 acres for commercial use. The homeowners sue Westernt o enforce the restrictive cov. Western felt this was equitable to enforce bc the the og restrictions have been thwarted and things changed.
Western Land v. Truskolaski
Holding
Court rejects and enforced restriction. Found there was no evidence that the subdivision even w traffic and commercialization has become unsuitable for residential use for the restriction for single family use is still useful.
Western Land v. Truskolaski
Reasoning/Rule
Although Western showed the change of circumstances, the court said the burden of proof is not to show circumstances have changed but to show that land is no longer suitable for residential use. The rezoning just permitted commerical use, didnt ban residential use.
