Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The covenant may be negative or affirmative. A negative covenant is one in which property owners are unable to perform a specific activity, such as block a scenic view. An affirmative covenant is one in which property owners must actively perform a specific activity, such as keeping the lawn tidy or paying homeowner's association dues for the ...
Covenants can be financial, information, ownership, affirmative, negative or positive covenants. Often, the breach of any covenant gives the lender the right to call the loan or collect interest at a higher rate.
Negative covenants may be continuous or incurrence-based. Violations of negative covenants are rare compared to violations of affirmative covenants. With most debt (including corporate debt, mortgages and bank loans) a covenant is included in the debt contract which states that the total amount owed becomes immediately payable on the first ...
In general, covenants that have not been preserved by re-recording within 30 years of their first application will be extinguished by the act, Andrew Atkins, an attorney with Raleigh law firm ...
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.
The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights. To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay, if and only if Clay is prohibited to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x.
A fixture at any fast food restaurant or backyard barbecue is American cheese. These orange, plastic-wrapped slices are unparalleled in terms of meltability. For many, when it comes to making a ...
Lord Templeman held that the covenant could not be enforced because the covenant was positive. His judgment said the following. [1]Equity cannot compel an owner to comply with a positive covenant entered into by his predecessors without flatly contradicting the common law rule that a person cannot be made liable upon a contract unless he was a party to it.