Limitations On Covenants Cases Flashcards
He had grocery stores one at Elizabeth Street another at Jorge Street. Because of decreasing volume sold Jorge Street to D with the covenant that it can’t be a grocery store for 40 years —> hardship to residence who didn’t have a car to get groceries elsewhere —> New Brunswick Housing Authority acquired property from D and lease to sea town to operate as a supermarket
Is covenenant enforceable?
No. Unreasonable for public policy violations.
Although there was notice, privity, touch & concern, created a food desert
- covenant can benefit from 2 miles away
- not unreasonable restraint on trade
- inappropriate use of touch and concern
Davidson Brothers v. D. Katz & Sons (1994)
D had declaration for condos which included no pets & buyer signed it. P purchased unit having 3 cars and sued saying covenant was unreasonable because her cats were indoors.
Is it?
No, unreasonableness has to apply to whole condo, not just her condo specifically
- Declaration presumptively valid
- Protecting expectations
- Limit litigation Costs passed onto owners
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Association (1994)
Developers owned a condo with ownership interest of 20%. Bylaws prohibited the trustees from being litigation against other parties without obtaining consent from 80% of unit owners. Building fell into disrepair and trustee brought suit against D’s for refusing to repair (since they wouldn’t bring suit against themselves)
Void for public policy?
Yes. Strong public policy for safety and habitability. Requiring 80% consent makes litigation difficult and with 20% of interest with D’s, need 100% of everyone else on board. Near impossibility of suit voice this by law.
Note: uncommon for courts to say “this restriction violates public policy”
Trustees of the Cambridge Point Condominium Trust v. Cambridge Point, LLC (2018)
Black family bought house and D and other white neighbors saw to enjoy a divest title. Trial court denied suit because not all property owner assigned the covenant that prevented Black people from owning property. (All five parcels owned by Black people)— most common ground for overturning covenants, technical defect, said nothing about violating public policy. Missouri Supreme Court reverse trial grants relief to D’s because covenant is valid in constitutional this was after peas moved in.
Is it?
No, racially restrictive covenant by state court counts as a discriminatory state action under the 14th amendment is unconstitutional.
CL requirements prob not met:
1. No horizontal privity
2. No notice because not entirely white
3. Does not touch and concern land because doesn’t affect value of neighborhood already integrated
- amendment doesn’t protect private parties
- people can still exclude/ no constitutional issues here
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
