Enforceable Covenants: - writing - intent to run - touch and concern - privity (horizontal and vertical) -> only important

in some courts, and if P wants damages as well as an injunction. Remedy: Injunction and damages! Touch and concern = look at both benefit and burdened side; different questions depending on whether it is a negative or positive covenant. Examples: Burdened parcel restricted to residential use, prohibition on sale of alcohol. Benefit: increase market value, renders ownership more attractive by reducing noise, traffic, rowdy characters. Burdened parcel has to pay homeowners fee (affirmative obligation) but potentially benefited (good neighborhood). Benefit: improvement of the land, market value Burdened parcel has to become a member of a recreation center not clearly benefitting the homes (but the courts are split). Benefit: may increase mv, but mainly about personal benefits/obligations. Burdened parcel has to annually purchase 10 tons of quartz from quartz. What does this has to do with the land? Benefit: will increase the MV of the benefited parcel (ok that it is a business benefit). Burdened parcel owner must not compete with grocery store. Touch and concern! PRIVITY Whitinsville Plaza v. Kotseas Does an anti-competitive covenant touch and concern the land? Facts: Kotseas (D) conveyed land to trustees of a trust. The deed contained numerous reciprocal covenants designed to further the development of a shopping center on the land. Among them there was a promise from D not to compete against the trustees store, which was supposed to run with the land and bind the heirs and assigns of both parties. The trust later conveyed the land to P, including the covenant on the deed. D then leased a portion of his land to a discount store and

pharmacy, in violation of the non-compete covenant. P sued for injunctive relief, damages, and, alternatively, release from his restrictions contained in the covenant. Rule: Reasonable covenants against competition may be considered to run with the land when they serve a purpose of facilitating orderly and harmonious development for commercial use. Holding: The court changed its position that categorically all covenants not to compete do not touch and concern the land, and thus do not run with the land. The judges recognized that when this type of restriction enhances the value of the land and are part of an overall plan of development, the covenant is valid and runs with the land. GRANTOR covenant: the restriction applies to the grantors land. CVS only had a lease (not a fee simple) -> so no obligation to pay damages. It is a relaxed privity (not strict privity), so Plaza can only sue for an injunction. (but some courts accept the relaxed standantd). Basis for horizontal privity: - lease of property (simultaneous interest in property at the same time) - sale of property - Massassusets rule: easement for ingrees and egress interest in the land NOT in horizontal privity: - agreements between neighbors (not owning the property at the same time) - sell and 1 week later remembers to include covenant Vertical privity - successive owner of GE or GR in fee -lessee Davidson Bros. v. Katz & Sons Reasonableness test (+public policy) Benefited: Grantor limit competition

Implied reciprocal negative servitudes in residential subdivisions Enforcement problems that would exist under the traditional rule Grantee restrictions to residential use.

A purchased first can she turn her parcel in a store? The time A purchased from O, everything belonged to O. There was a restriction on As land. D is the owner of land that is benefited from As restriction. New owners can enforce covenants of previous owners. What about A? Can A enforce? Traditionally no, because A did not get the covenant from O, who has no remaining interest in the land. Now can. Evans v. Pollock Whether the hill top/lake front parcels were subject of restrictions of single-family use. 1st: look at the deed no restriction Can you imply? Maybe central issue: existence of a general plan of development who is subject to it? TX Court: all subject of the plan, but they were not similarly situated, so they dont have to be subject to the same covenants. Sanborn: - notice: constructive (they have an obligation to look at nearby properties) and inquiry (observe patterns/similar use) notice - common plan: 53/91 lots, uniform residential character.