Covenants: Horizontal Privity for Burden to Run Forum

[A'nold]

Rule: If the covenant is in a deed of one of the parcels of land there is horizontal privity.

Why? Doesn't there have to be more to this rule? Doesn't the language in the deed have to benefit or burden land that the grantor still owns? I don't know why but this little sentence is messing with my head.

[ClubberLang]

Horizontal Privity and running with the land are separate elements for an enforceable covenant. A covenant being in the deed satisfies the notice and intent requirements of an enforceable covenant. For horizontal privity you run through the various forms (instantaneous, massachussetts, promise alone, present interest/future interest, another one I'm forgetting) all of which require a promise. So for promise alone and instantaneous privity a covenant in a deed would satisfy this but the "rule" is not correct for all forms of horizontal privity. That's the way we learned it anyway, but do what your professor says.

[concurrent fork]

Rule: If the covenant is in a deed of one of the parcels of land there is horizontal privity.

I don't think that has anything to do with horizontal privity, at least for MBE purposes. Horizontal privity = a particular relationship between the original covenanting parties such as grantor/grantee, lessor/lessee, or mortgagor/mortgagee. That's why it's so difficult to satisfy. The burden won't bind successive owners if the original parties lacked one of these relationships.

(Assuming this is for bar prep as I just went over this too)

[A'nold]

Rule: If the covenant is in a deed of one of the parcels of land there is horizontal privity.

I don't think that has anything to do with horizontal privity, at least for MBE purposes. Horizontal privity = a particular relationship between the original covenanting parties such as grantor/grantee, lessor/lessee, or mortgagor/mortgagee. That's why it's so difficult to satisfy. The burden won't bind successive owners if the original parties lacked one of these relationships.

(Assuming this is for bar prep as I just went over this too)

Thanks to both of you but I don't think the poster above you is talking about the same thing or maybe it's different in different states.

As for your response, this is why I am confused by the rule statement. We aren't an MBE state but everything lines up with what you said....except this weird deed thing. Oh well, I guess I'll just go with it without truly understanding it, lol.