Covenants/Equitable Servitudes. When the &@*! do they run? Forum

[LSL]

Ugh. Really struggling with this. If anyone could be a pal and explain to the struggler here in SIMPLE terms when it is that benefits and burdens run with the land (or not run with the land) for covenants and equitable servitudes, respectfully? Thanks in advance.

[LSL]

...

[Wile E.]

Equitable Servitudes:

[A] Requirements for the Burden to Run

In order for the burden of an equitable servitude to bind the original promissor’s successors, four elements must be met: (1) the promise must be in a writing that satisfies the Statute of Frauds or implied from a common plan; (2) the original parties must intend to burden successors; (3) the promise must “touch and concern” land; and (4) the successor must have notice of the promise.

Requirements for the Benefit to Run

Only three elements are required for the benefit to run to successors: (1) the promise must be in writing or implied from a common plan; (2) the original parties must intend to benefit successors; and (3) the promise must “touch and concern” land.

And because I know you will ask:
In order to touch and concern land, the covenant must relate to the direct use or enjoyment of the land. For example, a covenant that restricts the height of future buildings on a parcel meets this requirement. In contrast, a covenant that requires an act having no connection whatsoever to the particular parcel of land (e.g., dancing a jig in the village square) does not “touch and concern.”

[renardthecrocs]

Now in helpful chart form!



Also, since the chances are high that you're in my class or the other section taught by our prof, that's on page 345 of the gilberts.

[LSL]

Now in helpful chart form!



Also, since the chances are high that you're in my class or the other section taught by our prof, that's on page 345 of the gilberts.

Thank you both for posting. And I don't think I'm in your section, but good luck to you. Are you sure this chart is correct? I came across this chart before, but I thought you had to have notice for both the burden and benefit in equitable servitudes, so I was hesitant to trust it. Haha, could someone do me the favor of explaining why I'm wrong about that.

[renardthecrocs]

Thank you both for posting. And I don't think I'm in your section, but good luck to you. Are you sure this chart is correct? I came across this chart before, but I thought you had to have notice for both the burden and benefit in equitable servitudes, so I was hesitant to trust it. Haha, could someone do me the favor of explaining why I'm wrong about that.

It's not logical but it is the rule.

It is not a burden to the person buying it; it only enhances the value of the land that he purchased. If he finds out about it later, it's a nice little surprise. Same thing can't be said about burden. Anything that would devalue land requires notice to the purchaser (remember that notice is not required for those who inherit/come into possession other than through bona fide purchase); anything that enhances value does not.

(This is not logical because they are both mis-valuing land; we just don't punish someone if it was devalued, and we do reward those who find additional value through devaluing their neighbor's property.)

[BuckinghamB]

Gotta love dat Gilberts. Anyone else feel like studying for that exam was kind of a waste of time?

[renardthecrocs]

Who says I studied?

Did enjoy spending the last hour reading through his law review articles though.

[BuckinghamB]

Who says I studied?

Did enjoy spending the last hour reading through his law review articles though.

Ha, that was a smart move (seriously). Yeah there was quite a bit of extra time. I did find my little "Krier thinks this is dumb" notes helpful and amusing, though.