Mapa mental
FREEHOLD COVENANTS
Conteúdo do mapa
FREEHOLD COVENANTS
A contractual promise contained in a deed
- 2 types: Positive - requiring covenantor to do something - some physical action or financial outlay. ie build and maintain boundary
- Negative -requiring covenantor not to do something. ie don't use building for business
- Acid test - HAYWOOD v BRUNSWICK PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY - does the covenant require the expenditure of money? Yes = positive; No = negative
- 2 types: Positive - requiring covenantor to do something - some physical action or financial outlay. ie build and maintain boundary
Covenantor - person promising to observe the covenant
- Servient tenement
Covenantee - person with the benefit of the covenant
- Dominant tenement
Original covenantor liable to perform the covenant until it ceases. Even if property sold on, still liable.
- If original covenantor still owns property, remedy would be specific performance or an injunction, if they've moved on, remedy would be damages
- Different rules in CL and equity. CL difficult to enforce against covenantors successors so original covenantor is vulnerable
- In equity, negative covenants are more easily enforced against successors
- Different rules in CL and equity. CL difficult to enforce against covenantors successors so original covenantor is vulnerable
- If original covenantor still owns property, remedy would be specific performance or an injunction, if they've moved on, remedy would be damages
START WITH POSITION AT LAW
- Step 1 - Proving the running of the benefit at CL
- Benefit of both positive and negative covenants may pass by either express or implied assignment
- Deed may expressly transfer the benefit, but more often implied
- Assumed that sale will include covenants.. Consider is it useful for the land or a personal benefit? Covenant cannot be personal
- 4 Conditions: Covenant must touch and concern the land - either affect the land as regards it mode of occupation or the value of the land
- From SMITH & SNIPES HALL FARM LTD v RIVER DOUGLAS CATCHMENT BOARD
- X - must have been an intention that the benefit of the covenant should run with the land. Can be express or implied under s78 LPA.
- FEDERATED HOMES v MILL LODGE PROPERTIES LTD - s78 given a wide interpretation, a covenant is deemed to run with the land under s78 unless deed expresses otherwise!
- X - The covenantee (benefitter) must have had a legal estate in the dominant land
- X - New owner must take a legal estate in that land
- X - The covenantee (benefitter) must have had a legal estate in the dominant land
- FEDERATED HOMES v MILL LODGE PROPERTIES LTD - s78 given a wide interpretation, a covenant is deemed to run with the land under s78 unless deed expresses otherwise!
- X - must have been an intention that the benefit of the covenant should run with the land. Can be express or implied under s78 LPA.
- From SMITH & SNIPES HALL FARM LTD v RIVER DOUGLAS CATCHMENT BOARD
- 4 Conditions: Covenant must touch and concern the land - either affect the land as regards it mode of occupation or the value of the land
- Assumed that sale will include covenants.. Consider is it useful for the land or a personal benefit? Covenant cannot be personal
- Deed may expressly transfer the benefit, but more often implied
- Step 2 - Prove running of burden at CL
- AUSTERBERRY v OLDHAM CORPORATION says that, at CL, burden of covenant cannot run with the land
- Confirmed in RHONE v STEPHENS
- Ways around the rule but in majority of situations, exceptions won't help
- The rule in HALZALL v BRIZELL - mutual benefit/burden rule
- if land has benefit of an agreement, he cannot avoid the associated burden of it. ie easement to use driveway coupled with covenant to maintain it
- Operation of a chain of indemnity covenants - but if one person dies or is untraceable, chain broken and original covenantor is still liable
- Positive easements - (spurious easements) relate to cattle trespassing, rarely applied
- Positive easements - CROW v WOOD - says a covenant to fence may be an easement
- Enlargement of long leases - s153 LPA 1925
- Rights of re-entry/rent charges - payment of rent which allows owner to enter land and carry out work if necessary
- Enlargement of long leases - s153 LPA 1925
- Positive easements - CROW v WOOD - says a covenant to fence may be an easement
- Positive easements - (spurious easements) relate to cattle trespassing, rarely applied
- Operation of a chain of indemnity covenants - but if one person dies or is untraceable, chain broken and original covenantor is still liable
- if land has benefit of an agreement, he cannot avoid the associated burden of it. ie easement to use driveway coupled with covenant to maintain it
- The rule in HALZALL v BRIZELL - mutual benefit/burden rule
- Ways around the rule but in majority of situations, exceptions won't help
- Confirmed in RHONE v STEPHENS
- AUSTERBERRY v OLDHAM CORPORATION says that, at CL, burden of covenant cannot run with the land
- Benefit of both positive and negative covenants may pass by either express or implied assignment
- Step 1 - Proving the running of the benefit at CL
Informações
- Descrição
- Degree Land Law Mapa Mental sobre FREEHOLD COVENANTS, criado por costafortune em 11-05-2013.
- Criado por
- costafortune · mai 2013
- Atualizado
- 17 abr 2017
- Visualizações
- 365
- Tags
- Avaliação