Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Covenants enforceable under the rule of Tulk v Moxhay... are properly conceived as running with the land in equity and, by reason of their enforceability, as constituting an equitable servitude or burden on the servient land. The essence of such an incident is that it should touch or concern the land as contradistinguished from a collateral effect.
Real covenants and easements or equitable servitudes are similar [9] and in 1986, a symposium discussed whether the law of easements, equitable servitudes, and real covenants should be unified. [4] As time passes and the original promisee of the covenant is no longer involved in the land, enforcement may become lax. [10]
An action to enforce townhome covenants is, in fact, a legal or equitable action on a contract or written instrument—and so any enforcement action must be brought within five years.
A restraint that increases the value of property is more reasonable. There are five basic conditions that must be met in order for there to be an effective real covenant and equitable servitude: It must be enforceable.
An easement is a property right and type of incorporeal property in itself at common law in most jurisdictions. An easement is similar to real covenants and equitable servitudes. [2] In the United States, the Restatement (Third) of Property takes steps to merge these concepts as servitudes. [3]
Originally, enclave was a term of property law, across much of Europe, particularly seen early in 15th century France derived from earlier ecclesiastical senses, for the situation of a main estate of land or a parcel of land surrounded by land owned by a different owner(s), and that could not be reached for its exploitation in a practical and sufficient manner without crossing the surrounding ...
Spencer's Case is an early departure from strict rules of contractual privity that limit recourse for breach of covenant when brought against third parties who did not sign the contract containing the covenant. [2] It established at common law that covenants with a close relationship to the land will "run with the land." [3]