Restricting Land Use: Covenants—Restraints on Alienation

Question 1

Northwest Real Estates Co v Serio

Answer 1

Facts
The Northwest Real Estate Company sold a building lot in Ashburton, a suburb of Baltimore City, to Carl M. Einbrod and wife with a deed dated August 19, 1927. The deed contained various building and use restrictions, including a provision that the property could not be sold or rented without the grantor’s written consent until January 1, 1932. The Einbrods entered into a contract to sell the lot to Charles Serio and wife. However, the Northwest Real Estate Company refused to consent to the sale. Charles Serio and his wife filed a suit against the Einbrods and the Northwest Real Estate Company seeking specific performance of the contract to sell the lot to them, arguing that the covenant restricting sale or rental without the grantor’s consent was void.

Issue
Is the covenant in the deed, which restricts the sale or rental of the property without the grantor’s written consent until a specified date, void for being repugnant to the granted fee simple estate?

Holding
The Court held that the covenant restricting the sale or rental of the property without the grantor’s consent until January 1, 1932, is void as it is repugnant to the fee simple estate granted by the deed.

Question 2

Shelley v Kramer restraints on alienation race case about property move in all white neighborhood

Answer 2

Facts
Shelley v. Kraemer involves two cases from Missouri and Michigan regarding the enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in real estate contracts. These covenants prevented property ownership and occupancy by persons of designated races. In the Missouri case, a covenant from 1911 restricted property ownership on Labadie Avenue in St. Louis to Caucasians for fifty years, but not all property owners signed this agreement. The Shelleys, a Black family, purchased a home in this area in 1945 without knowledge of the covenant. Respondents sought to prevent the Shelleys from taking possession based on the covenant. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision against the covenant, enforcing it. In the Michigan case, a similar scenario unfolded with the Sipes v. McGhee, where the Fergusons’ 1934 covenant restricted property use to Caucasians. The McGhees, also a Black family, bought a home in 1944, faced a lawsuit for enforcement of the covenant, and the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the covenant’s enforcement.

Issue
The central issue is whether state courts’ enforcement of racially restrictive covenants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in real estate by state courts constituted state action and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 3

Evans v Abney

Answer 3

facts
In 1911, United States Senator Augustus O. Bacon executed a will that conveyed property in Macon, Georgia, to be used as a park exclusively for white people. This racial restriction was initially enforced, but eventually, the City of Macon allowed the park, known as Baconsfield, to be used by Black citizens, contending it could not maintain a public facility on a segregated basis. This led to legal challenges, and the city resigned as trustee. New trustees were appointed, but due to the racial restriction, the trust’s purpose was deemed impossible to fulfill. This case, Evans v. Abney, arises after the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the trust had failed and the property reverted to the heirs of Senator Bacon, following a previous Supreme Court decision (Evans v. Newton) that the park could not be operated on a racially discriminatory basis.

Issue
The central issue before the Court was whether the termination of the trust, which led to the reversion of the park to the heirs because the original purpose of the park (racial segregation) was unconstitutional and thus unenforceable, violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia, holding that the termination of the trust did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.