Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
A full coverage search is usually done when creating a title report for sale/resale transactions and for transaction that involves construction loans. It generally includes searches related to property lien, easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions(CC&Rs), agreements, resolutions and ordinances that will affect the real property in question.
In property law, land-related covenants are called "real covenants", " covenants, conditions and restrictions " (CCRs) or "deed restrictions" and are a major form of covenant, typically imposing restrictions on how the land may be used (negative covenants) or requiring a certain continuing action (affirmative covenant).
Davidson Bros., Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc., 643 A.2d 642 (App. Div. 1994), was a case decided by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that first applied public policy considerations instead of the touch and concern doctrine when deciding the validity of a restrictive covenant.
Tulk v Moxhay is a landmark English land law case which decided that in certain cases a restrictive covenant can "run with the land" (i.e. a future owner will be subject to the restriction) in equity. It is the reason that Leicester Square exists today.
Attempts have been made to evade the doctrine by implying trusts (with varying success), constructing the Law of Property Act 1925 s. 56(1) to read the words "other property" as including contractual rights, and applying the concept of restrictive covenants to property other than real property (without success). in case of trust/beneficiary
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 (/ ˈ r uː t ə m /) is an English land law and English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for breach of negative covenant in circumstances where the court has confirmed that a covenant is legally enforceable and refused, as unconscionable, to issue an order for specific performance or an ...
This builds on earlier legislation that allowed homeowners to request the removal of such language. [57] Washington: The state passed a law in 2021 that requires all real estate documents to be free from racially restrictive covenants and provides a process for property owners to have them removed. [58]