Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Rockwell v. Despart, 2022 WL 1492438, the Third Department recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land? Of course, a burdened landowner may always negotiate removal with the covenant's beneficiaries, but strategic behavior or the high transactions costs that arise when many parties benefit from the covenant may preclude negotiated removal. RPAPL 1951 addresses the problem. Subsection 1 precludes enforcement of land use restrictions "if, at the time the enforceability of the restriction is brought in question, it appears that the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to the persons seeking its enforcement." Subsection two provides that when a party seeks relief from a restriction, a court may adjudge that the restriction is not enforceable by injunction, and may adjudge that the covenant be extinguished on payment of damages if "the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to the persons seeking its enforcement or seeking a declaration of its enforceability, either because the purpose of the restriction has already been accomplished or, by reason of changed conditions or other cause, its purpose is not capable of accomplishment, or for any other reason."
Although the statute, by its terms, is applicable only when the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to the persons seeking enforcement, courts generally remove covenants that continue to provide some benefit if enforcement would, contrary to the parties' original intent, leave the burdened landowner with no permissible use of the property. The leading case is Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Philwold Estates, Inc., 52 NY2d 253, where the restriction limited use of the burdened land to construction of a hydroelectric plant — a use that became impossible when the state condemned the burdened owner's riparian rights in the adjacent river. The benefitted landowner also held an easement to use the burdened land for hunting and fishing purposes, but the Court of Appeals held that even if the easement would be enhanced if the burdened land were kept in unspoiled condition, that benefit was not sufficient to permit continued enforcement of the restrictive covenant. Similarly, in Board of Education v. Doe, 88 A.D.2d 108, the Fourth Department held that a school district was entitled to removal of a covenant precluding commercial use of its property when the school district had no further use of the school established that the cost to build residential homes on the lots would be greater than the price buyers would pay for those homes. Even though maintenance of the covenant was "not totally valueless" to neighboring residential owners, the court emphasized the absence of a market for the school parcel if limited to residential use. The court also noted that most of the benefited landowners had voluntarily released their rights, leaving only three of 140 landowners remaining as parties to the action. See also, Zimmerman v. Seven Corners Development, Inc., 237 A.D.2d 892 (removing single-family use covenant where the town had enacted a zoning ordinance prohibiting residential development on the burdened land).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.