Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In real property law, the term real covenants means that conditions are tied to the ownership or use of land. A "covenant running with the land", meeting tests of wording and circumstances laid down in precedent , imposes duties or restrictions upon the use of that land regardless of the owner.
In real estate, a restrictive covenant is a rule or condition placed on a property that outlines what homeowners can and cannot do with their land. These covenants are legally binding and often ...
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
Covenant of warranty: Covenants that represent seller's promise to protect the buyer against anyone who comes along later and claims paramount title to the property. [ 1 ] [ 5 ] Covenant of further assurances: The covenant of further assurances requires the seller to take affirmative steps to cure any defects in the grantor's title.
An equitable servitude is a term used in the law of real property to describe a nonpossessory interest in land that operates much like a covenant running with the land. [1] In England and Wales the term is defunct and in Scotland it has very long been a sub-type of the Scottish legal version of servitudes, which are what English law calls easements.
Property law is characterised by a great deal of historical continuity and technical terminology. The basic distinction in common law systems is between real property (land) and personal property (chattels). Before the mid-19th century, the principles governing the transfer of real property and personal property on an intestacy were quite ...
A positive covenant is a kind of agreement relating to land, where the covenant requires positive expenditure by the person bound, in order to fulfil its terms. Unlike a restrictive covenant, a covenant to perform a positive act does not "run with the land" and therefore does not bind the covenantor’s successors in title.
On the face of it disavowing that covenants can "run with the land" so as to avoid the strict common law's former definition of "running with the land", the case has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1950 as meaning that "covenants enforceable under the rule of Tulk v Moxhay... are properly conceived as running with the land in ...