Restricting Land Use: Covenants

Question 1

Covenants

Answer 1

are negative servictudes

Question 2

Privity

Answer 2

bound by contract and entitled to enforce its benefits

Question 3

real convenants

Answer 3

1 must be in writing
2 intended to be binding on future tenants
3 touched and concern the eland
4 privity of estate or mutual ownership

Question 4

equitable servitudes

Answer 4

covenant that could be enforced by injunction despite lack of privity

Question 5

notice

Answer 5

the owner of the burdended estate could be enjoined from violating the covenenat

Question 6

Real covenants Damages

Answer 6

1. writing complying with statute of frauds
2. intent to run presumed if appurtenant
   3 privity including both
   4 horizontal privity; covenant was created during transfer of burden land and benefitted land, or parties are in lessor lessee relationship or own mutual easmenets
   B. Vertical privity ; current owners obtained land by legal transfer from original covenenats
   4 Touch and Concern direct use of the land
   Both Burden an dbefit must touch and concern some land
   Benefits in gross will not run against owners of servient estates unless held by governments or non profits

Question 7

Equitable Servitude Injunctive Relief

Answer 7

1. writing complying with statute of frauds
2. intent to run presumed if appurtenant
   3 Actual inquiry or constructive notice to owner of servient estate, enforcer must be intended beneficiary of covenant
   4 Touch and concern, same as for real covenant- direct effect on use or value of land
   Both Burden an dbefit must touch and concern some land
   Benefits in gross will not run against owners of servient estates unless held by governments or non profits

Question 8

Restatements 3rd

Answer 8

1. writing complying with statute of frauds
2. intent to run presumed if appurtenant
   3 Actual inquiry or constructive notice to owner of servient estate, enforcer must be intended beneficiary
3. For affirmative obligations to pay homeowners association fees obligation to maintain lawn burden will only run to tenant if makes more sense for tenant to perform but benefit can be enforced by either landowner of tenant
4. Enforceable unless unreasonable, covenant is not spiteful or arbitrary, does not unreasonable constitutional right, restrain alienation or restrain trade and doe snot otherwise violate public policy
5. Benfits in gross can run so long as befit holder has legitimate interest in covenant and is identifiable

Question 9

Neponsit P.O. Assn. v. Emigrant Ind. Sav. Bank

Answer 9

Facts
In Neponsit P.O. Assn. v. Emigrant Ind. Sav. Bank, the case revolves around a property in Queens county developed by Neponsit Realty Company into a residential community. The company conveyed lots to purchasers with covenants in the deeds for the maintenance of public spaces. In 1917, a deed with such a covenant was transferred to Robert Oldner Deyer and his wife. This covenant required the landowner to pay an annual charge for maintaining public areas like roads, parks, and sewers. The charges were to become a lien on the land until paid. This covenant was intended to be enforceable by a property owners’ association and was included in all subsequent deeds. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank later purchased the land at a judicial sale, with the deeds indicating that the property was subject to the covenant. The Neponsit Property Owners Association, as the assignee of Neponsit Realty Company, sought to enforce the covenant against the Bank.

Issue
The primary issue is whether the covenant in the deed, requiring payment for the maintenance of public areas, constitutes a real covenant running with the land and is enforceable by the Neponsit Property Owners Association against the subsequent landowner (Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank).

Holding
The court held that the covenant did run with the land and was enforceable by the Neponsit Property Owners Association against the Bank. This decision affirmed the lower court’s ruling

Question 10

actual notice

Answer 10

if was actually told about it or made aware

Question 11

inquiry notice

Answer 11

if the condition of the premises would make reasonable purchaser inquire about the existence of a covenants

Question 12

Constructive noti ce

Answer 12

if the restriction was recorded within the registry of the deeds and found via a reasonable search of the records prior to sale

Question 13

horizontal privity and vertical privity

Answer 13

horizontal is one piece of property is burdened for the benefit of another

Vertical privity is these benefits and burdens run to succeeding owners of both parcels

Question 14

strict vertical privity

Answer 14

grantor should not retain any future intrest in the land

Question 15

relaxed vertical privity

Answer 15

allows the covenant to run will all to those assigned posession

Question 16

Covenant

Answer 16

obligations to do something or refrain from doing something on ones land

Question 17

Benefitted estate

Answer 17

the person who is asking to do something

Question 18

Burden

Answer 18

Person asking to do something and cannot

Question 19

Promisee

Answer 19

coventaee receives the right of the promise performed and also received the befit

Question 20

Promisor

Answer 20

convenator has the burden has the duty to perform what they said they would do

Question 21

determining if a restriction is negative or affirmative

Answer 21

depends on what is required of the promisor
Promisor must act, the restriction is affirmative

if prior is required to act the restriction is negative

Question 22

Evans v Polluck doctrinde of implied reciprocal servitudes

Answer 22

Facts
In 1947, Stanley and Sarah Agnes Hornsby, along with Charles and Bernice McCormick, platted Beby’s Ranch Subdivision No. 1 around Lake Travis, dividing it into seven blocks (A-G) with some blocks further divided into 31 lakefront lots. The subdivision was designed with a clear intent to establish a residential area, with restrictions against commercial use explicitly included in most deeds of the sold lots, except for two lots sold before the plan was enacted without such restrictions. The Hornsbys and McCormicks retained certain properties, including all of Block F (hilltop block) and lots in Block G. The dispute arose when Hornsby’s heirs planned to sell Block F and some G lots for commercial development, contrary to the subdivision’s general plan emphasizing residential use.
Issue
Whether restrictive covenants, implied as part of a general plan of development for a subdivision, can apply to retained properties of the developers, especially when these properties were not initially sold with such restrictions.
Holding
The Texas Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants can be implied on retained properties within a subdivision if these properties fall within a clearly-defined restricted district intended as part of the subdivision’s general plan of development. The court reversed the appellate court’s decision, which had found that such covenants could only be imposed if the general plan included the entire subdivision tract, and remanded the case for consideration of factual sufficiency points.