Property Help!!!

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
rbgrocio
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:58 pm

Property Help!!!

Postby rbgrocio » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:29 pm

Ok... I don't seem to get the concept of an implied reciprocal negative servitude.

Can anyone explain what are the requirements for enforcement?

User avatar
jp0094
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Property Help!!!

Postby jp0094 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:03 pm

In terms of when IRNS are enforced in common plans the courts split.

From my notes:

Sanborn v. McLean, 206 N.W. 496 (Mich. 1925)
- Held that McLeans were on constructive notice of the restrictions in the deed to the neighboring properties (53 of 91 lots had the restrictive covenant) and that the uniform residential character of the surrounding properties also put the McLeans on inquiry notice to determine whether there were restrictive covenants on neighboring lots that might be interpreted to create a plan to restrict the entire neighborhood to residential uses.
- The Ct inferred an intent to create a common plan even though a great number of the properties did not have restrictions.
COMPARED WITH
Riley v. Bear Creek Planning Committee, 555 P.2d 1213 (Cal. 1976)
Rileys were not subject to the restrictions b/c there was no writing in their deed limiting the use of their land and the intent of the owner to impose those restrictions was not binding on them.

PS: Property = the worst 1L subject

User avatar
rbgrocio
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:58 pm

Re: Property Help!!!

Postby rbgrocio » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:10 pm

My property professor today said that it had to be in writing, that there had to be notice, that there needed to be intent that the restriction run with the land and that the restriction had to touch and concern the land. This threw me off completely 'cause this sounds like an equitable servitude to me... so I really don't get his definition. I spent like an hour talking to him about it, and I still didn't get what he was saying. We have a quiz on Thursday on this thing!!!


I would say that the worst 1L class is criminal law.... our professor spends the entire class talking about how much he loves the dissent opinions.... =(

User avatar
jlockhart6
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:12 am

Re: Property Help!!!

Postby jlockhart6 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:08 pm

I definitely don't think an implied reciprocal negative easement/servitude needs to be in writing. So long as the buyer has some sort of notice of the common scheme (usually inquiry - and sometimes arbitrary at that) they will be bound by the common scheme.

rbgrocio wrote:My property professor today said that it had to be in writing, that there had to be notice, that there needed to be intent that the restriction run with the land and that the restriction had to touch and concern the land. This threw me off completely 'cause this sounds like an equitable servitude to me... so I really don't get his definition. I spent like an hour talking to him about it, and I still didn't get what he was saying. We have a quiz on Thursday on this thing!!!


I would say that the worst 1L class is criminal law.... our professor spends the entire class talking about how much he loves the dissent opinions.... =(

User avatar
napolnic
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: Property Help!!!

Postby napolnic » Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:54 am

rbgrocio wrote:My property professor today said that it had to be in writing, that there had to be notice, that there needed to be intent that the restriction run with the land and that the restriction had to touch and concern the land. This threw me off completely 'cause this sounds like an equitable servitude to me... so I really don't get his definition. I spent like an hour talking to him about it, and I still didn't get what he was saying. We have a quiz on Thursday on this thing!!!


I would say that the worst 1L class is criminal law.... our professor spends the entire class talking about how much he loves the dissent opinions.... =(


In the Sanborn case, the recording was in the first deed and subsequent lots; the notice was inquiry notice (the buyer should have noticed that there were only residential buildings and should have inquired not only with the party he was buying from. The court is never clear on what exactly he should have done, but apparently it wasn't necessary that he ask all his neighbors about it.); the intent is that the parties that had the covenant in the first place intended not only that property to be bound, but also bound the common owner from selling properties without that covenant, express or implied. The intent was to bind all parties including subsequent buyers who benefited from the covenant (although there is still some question about that because the original covenant only mentioned the first property). For some reason I'm blanking on the precise definition that the court used with touch and concern, but noting how well they defined themselves, they probably punted on that one.

And yes, crim is the worst 1L class, bar none. People who wanted to be criminal prosecutors quickly changed their minds after that.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChristineBaskets, Egzon and 4 guests