The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
11th year real estate lawyer has a simple real property question
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:39 AM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce If you have a restrictive covenant against a property which benefits not a neighboring parcel, but a person or company, what do we call it?
I know a proper restrictive covenant needs to have a burdened and benefited parcel with vertical and horizontal privity, etc.
If we want the burden of the covenant to run with the land being sold, but the benefit of the covenant not to run with a benefited parcel, but with a person (think a recorded non-compete agreement), this is not really a restrictive covenant but what? |
 |
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:07 AM Author: Spectacular business firm faggot firefighter I guess I'd call it a restrictive covenant (or possibly a negative easement) in gross. Should be doable, but i think there are some different rules about successors and whether it can last in perpetuity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33444060) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:11 AM Author: Spectacular business firm faggot firefighter I'm thinking a non-compete is probably pretty similar to a conservation restrictive covenant. I think best practice is to just be very clear about who the beneficiary is and when/how they can enforce it. If your firm has that kind of template I'd check there.
For the writer of the wreck of the cantor fitzgerald, I could be convinced to send a template to a throwaway if you need something. |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:27 AM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce throwaway is manigoat@gmail. Thanks.
I have all sorts of standard restrictive covenant forms but all of them refer to a benefited parcel.
I've seen all sorts of covenants generally in favor of the city, but not so often a private entity with no remaining real property interest. |
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:46 AM Author: supple stage Dominant estate can be a person or property, I think.
Does easement in gross get you there? |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:00 AM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce dominant estate is only property.
This might be a negative easement in gross, but those easements generally do not run with the land unless specified - worth researching further. |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:15 AM Author: supple stage Beats me. I don't get into these weeds very often. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33444073) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:10 AM Author: offensive sooty cruise ship wagecucks Does this create problems with rule against perpetuities? Not enough info in the poast to conclude that it does, but seems like you may want to vet that issue and make sure whatever you do is drafted around it (if necessary). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33444064) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:23 AM Author: Spectacular business firm faggot firefighter it can, but only in some jurisdictions and there's always a way to draft around it. I don't know Cali specifically, but I'd be shocked if they aren't skeptical of non-competes generally. Probably fine legally and practically to just say it lasts 99 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33444099) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:25 AM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce Let's say my client runs 50 Alpaca farms throughout California. My client wants to sell one of its farms, not connected to any other property, to Halford.
I need to make sure that 1) Halford does not operate an alpaca farm or that property, and 2) no successor owner of the property is permitted to operate an alpaca farm.
This seems like a simple deed restriction, or restrictive covenant to be recorded with the deed. We have horizontal privity, this will be recorded and it clearly affects the servient property. I am just getting hung up on the lack of a dominant estate. My client wants to be able to enforce the restriction forever, whether or not my client sells any or all of its remaining farms.
I feel like I've seen this a bunch of times but the whole benefited and burdened parcel thing is throwing me off. Maybe it's a negative easement which can specifically be stated to run with the land in favor of my client (which makes an otherwise gross easement appurtenant).
|
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:37 PM Author: Painfully honest amber public bath That's ridiculous. What a bullshit restriction of land use. Why doesn't it just rent the property? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447614) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:40 PM Author: Bateful Gas Station This doesn't strike me as enforceable. I don't do property law, admittedly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447630) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:36 AM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce Winn-Dixie v. Dolgencorp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33444140) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:50 PM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447181) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:52 PM Author: pink halford national I hope you're billing this thread as legal research. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447195) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:54 PM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce half the time. This is driving me insane - there should be a simple answer but I can't find it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447224) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:53 PM Author: Awkward stirring principal's office they would not be allowed in my JX, but I'd guess as above negative easement in gross (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447211) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:53 PM Author: crimson area rigpig wtf, I'm a lawyer and i didn't understand a single word you said (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447216) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:54 PM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce go to my alpaca example above. That's basically the real issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447229) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:59 PM Author: crimson area rigpig just read it. i understand the fact pattern, but then got lost when you talked about "dominant estates" and "benefited and burdened parcels" and "gross easement appurtenant".
i purged these terms out of my mind as soon as i walked out of the bar exam
|
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:57 PM Author: grizzly federal point weed whacker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447262) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:55 PM Author: aromatic location hissy fit How often do you have substantive legal issues like this in your practice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447243) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:57 PM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce almost never. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447264) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:02 PM Author: aromatic location hissy fit Lol what the fuck is it you do then? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447313) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:57 PM Author: shimmering yarmulke fuck I deal with real estate shit all the time and I can't remember half of the property law concepts mentioned ITT (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447268) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 2:59 PM Author: passionate cerise mood Not a property bro but these kinds of archaisms are always lol and always unnecessarily conflated with shit which is what confuses people. All you need to know is that it is language of obligation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447286) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:01 PM Author: Pea-brained magenta lettuce language of obligation does not mean anything to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447302) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:28 PM Author: passionate cerise mood What is the reason you are trying to find out what it is "called"? Is this to research enforceability or something? I'm just talking from a drafting standpoint in deal docs when people start trying to pin stuff like this down it just confuses everyone unnecessarily (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447543) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:01 PM Author: crimson area rigpig cr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447306) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:34 PM Author: Onyx set dingle berry check Bus & Prof 16600 first. Might not be enforceable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447595) |
|
Date: June 1st, 2017 3:39 PM Author: Bateful Gas Station I thought negative easements were limited to air, light, support, etc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3632698&forum_id=2#33447627) |