Freehold Covenants Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is a covenant?

A

A covenant is a provision, or promise, contained in a deed to land. Land may be subject to a covenant which affects or limits its use. This is known as the burden of a covenant. A covenant may give a landowner some say over what is permissible on neighbouring property. This is called the benefit of a covenant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Give examples of easements and covenants, positive and negative.

A
Easements: (positive)
- Mostly access
- Right of way on foot
- Vehicular access
- Pipes and cables
- Parking?
Easements: (negative)
- Light
- Support

Covenants (negative)

  • Mostly restrictions on use
  • Residential use only
  • No fences
  • Building lines and development
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How is a covenant created?

A
  • Express only (no prescription/implication)
  • Deed - just s1 LP(MP)A 1989
  • Unlike easements, covenants can be about anything
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

In what direction does the burden/benefit travel in different scenarios?

A

‘Passing the burden’ does from covenantor to covenantee

‘Passing the benefit’ goes from covenantee to covenantor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the two different types of covenant?

A

Restrictive covenants

Positive covenants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What case is relevant for historically ‘passing the burden’ and why was it decided in the way it was>

A

Talk v Moxhay (1848)

Highly inequitable for a party t pay less for an estate because it’s encumbered by a covenant, then sell it as unencumbered for a higher price

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

For sale by covenantor, how is passing the burden different now to how it was historically like in Talk v Moxhay (1848)

A
  • Burden still passes in equity
  • Tulk v Moxhay swiftly limited to restrictive covenants entered into between freeholders
  • REGISTRATION: for covenants on/after 1926, a notice must be entered into the charges register
  • There must be land benefited by the restrictive covenant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

For sale by covenantee, how does the passing of the benefit work?

A
  • By assignment

- By annexation: Covenant attached/annexed to land, thereafter covenant continues to pass with land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How did the federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] simplify passing the benefit?

A

The question of the case was: could the covenant be impliedly annexed to one bit of land without there having been an assignment of the benefit = NO

CA held: s78 means as long as covenant is ‘related to’ land of covenantee, will run with the land for successors in title

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Regarding the positive covenant rule for freehold estates, what two cases are most relevant and what did they establish?

A

Austerberry v Oldham Corporation [1885] - Only the burden of a restrictive covenant is transmissible (in equity)

Talk v Moxhay [1848] - Was it positive or negative - It prevents the successor from exercising a right he never acquired, doesn’t contradict CL: to compel the owner to comply with a positive covenant would flatly contradict the common law rule of privity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Describe the facts of the case of Rhone v Stephens [1994]

A
  • Burden of repairing the roof was not transmissible
  • CL:
    Cannot enforce an agreement other than between the parties to the agreement - The covenant in the conveyances thus ineffective in passing burden at common law
  • At equity, equity supplements not contradicts CL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What did the Law Commission Report 327 recommend as a solution to freehold covenant problems?

A

‘Land Obligations’ - A new kind of legal interest in land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Describe the limit of freehold positive covenants that is ‘fences’

A
  • Can’t have a ‘set and forget’ covenant to maintain fence - will obvs bind original parties
  • Not an easement, widely regarded as false
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Describe the limit of freehold positive covenants that is ‘flats’

A
  • Not a trivial problem, but solid/established solutions exist - who will see to upkeep of common areas
  • Use leasehold? - positive covenants enforceable
  • Use commonhold? - exists since 2002 but rarely used
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Give 5 methods used as positive covenant workarounds in e.g. mews, close developments

A
  1. Conveyancers’ devices: chain of covenants
  2. Mutuality
  3. Others e.g. estate rentcharge
  4. Conditional Easements
  5. Management structures for sharing costs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is a ‘chain of covenants’ as a conveyancers’ device?

A
  • On sale, the purchase covenants to indemnify the seller for the same thing they covenanted
  • Enforcement? Indirect… chains of actions to recover, passing damages down the line
17
Q

How does ‘mutuality’ work as a positive covenant workaround?

A
  • Benefit and burden principle (Halsall v Brizell [1957] ) - Grant of a right of way (benefit) subject to an obligation that it be taken together with an obligation to contribute the cost of repairing the roadway
  • Only works where the benefit and burden are inextricably linked
18
Q

How does ‘estate rentcharge’ work as a positive covenant workaround?

A

(coupled with right of re-entry)

Impose on a freehold transfer an obligation to do/pay for something, if they don’t, can go onto land to do it + entitlement to recover costs

19
Q

How do ‘conditional easements’ work as a positive covenant workaround?

A

Ellenborough Park - Owners of residential properties adjacent to parkland, which was vested in trustees, given right of common enjoyment - recently confirmed in Regency Villas v Diamond Resorts [2018]