Drake Week 13 brief
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Notre Dame *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
197
Subject
English
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by EarlWaterBuffaloMaster1068
Case Brief & IRAC Worksheet
Case Name: Tulk v. Moxhay
, 41 Eng. Rep 1143 (1848)
Subject Matter:
Servitudes (covenants)
Case Brief
Facts: Tulk conveyed some property around Leicester Square to Elms with covenants that specify that the property is to be used to maintain the garden, that the garden will not be covered with buildings, and that the property's tenants will have rights to use Leicester square by paying reasonable rent. Elms’ property was later transferred to Moxhay. The deed to Moxhay does not indicate the covenants conveyed to Elms, but Moxhay was aware of the covenants in the deed from Tulk to Elms. Moxhay wants to build on the property and is sued by Tulk who still owns property in the square. Issue statements: The issue is whether a covenant that runs with the land is enforceable when the grantee is aware of the covenant. Ruling/Holding:
The court determines that the covenant is enforceable as a matter of equitability because the parties involved in the transaction were aware of the covenants and their effect on the property. The court indicated that a person may only transfer rights that they own, and since Elms did not own the rights to build on the property, such rights could not be transferred to Moxhay.
Rule/Principle:
Equitable servitude acts as an interest in the can run with the land and is binding in equity. IRAC
Facts: Tulk conveyed a portion of property around Leicester Square to Elms with covenants indicating property is to be used to maintain garden space and that garden will not be covered with any buildings. The property was later conveyed to
Moxhay, but the deed did not indicate the covenants. Moxhay was none the less aware of the covenants. Moxhay wanted to build on the property conveyed to him but was sued by Tulk to prevent the erection of buildings on the property with the previous stated covenants. The lowed court granted the injunction to prevent the building and Moxhay appealed.
Issue statement:
The issue is whether a covenant that runs with the land is enforceable when the grantee is aware of the existing covenant. Rule/Principle: Covenants that run with the land are enforceable. A party cannot transfer a right in a property that is not theirs to transfer.
Application: covenants that run with the land and are known are enforceable regardless of subsequent ownership or interest. Conclusion:
Covenants that run with the land are enforceable and subsequent owners may not convey a right that is not theirs to convey i.e. building on property that is protected from such building.
Case Brief & IRAC Worksheet
Case Name: Shelley v. Kreamer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Subject Matter:
Servitudes (covenants)
Case Brief
Facts: In 1911 several property owners singed and recorded a restrictive covenant which provided that no non-Caucasian races were welcome on the property for the next fifty years. The covenant did not allow occupancy or ownership by non-whites. The Kraemer’s placed their own up for sale that had this restrictive covenant. The Shelley’s, a black family, purchased a home in the neighborhood with the restrictive covenant and moved in. neighbors sued asking that the Shelley’s be removed from the property as they were in violation of the covenant. The trial court ruled in favor of the Shelley’s but the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the trial court decision. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Issue statements:
Whether the judicial enforcement of a racial restrictive covenant violated the 14
th
Amendment given that the covenant was between two
parties and not a government actor.
Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of the Shelley family.
Holding:
Court ruled that a judicial action is a government action and was in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14
th
Amendment. Rule/Principle:
covenants that restrict right protected in the Constitution are unenforceable and enforcement of such covenants creates a government action triggering constitutional violation. IRAC
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Facts: In 1911 several property owners singed and recorded a restrictive covenant
which provided that no non-Caucasian races were welcome on the property for the next fifty years. The Shelley’s, a black family, purchased a home in the neighborhood with the restrictive covenant and moved in. Neighbors sued asking that the Shelley’s be removed from the property as they were in violation of the covenant. Missouri Supreme court decided that covenant was enforceable. Appealed to United States Supreme Court
Issue statement:
Whether a judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant
violated the 14
th
Amendment give that the covenants were between private parties and not a government actor?
Rule/Principle: Judicial enforcement of a private agreement allowing racially restrictive covenants is a violation of the 14
th
Amendment of the United States Constitution
.
Application: In the case of enforcing racially restrictive covenants judicial enforcement constitutes state action and triggers protections under the 14
th
Amendment. Conclusion:
Enforcing racially restrictive covenants is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14
th
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Case Brief & IRAC Worksheet
Case Name: Taylor ET AL v. Northam ET AL, ___ S.E.2D___ WL (2021)
Subject Matter:
Servitudes (covenants)
Case Brief
Facts: In 1887 the heirs of William Allen conveyed a deed to the Lee Monument Association. The property was a round piece of property located at the intersection of two streets in what is now known as Richmond, Virginia requiring that the property be used as a site for the Confederate General Robert E. Lee. After completing the monument, the monument and property were given to the Commonwealth of Virginia indicating that the state was to hold the monument perpetually sacred and for “the purpose of which it has been devoted” in 1821. In 2020 civil rights movements and growing negative sentiment against Confederate Monuments prompted Governor Northam to call for the removal of the Lee monument. Helen Taylor and others owing property surrounding the monument sued to stop the removal of the monument. Northam argued that a real covenant did not exists and even if it did, the covenant was now against public policy and should not be enforced. Issue statements:
Whether Commonwealth of Virginia is bound by a perpetual restrictive covenant given the changing political attitudes and views.
Ruling/holding:
The Court ruled that the restrictive covenants that compel government speech and are against public policy are not enforceable.
Rule/Principle:
Restrictive covenants that compel government speech are unenforceable. IRAC
Facts: in 1887 A piece of property in what is known as Richmond, Virginia was conveyed to an organization for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a
monument devoted to a confederate general. Approximately 1821 the property was later conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia with the purpose that the monument would be maintained perpetually. Changing political views and civil rights organizations movements prompted the governor of the Commonwealth of
Virgina to call for the removal of the Confederate monument now owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Issue statement: Whether Commonwealth of Virginia is bound by a perpetual restrictive covenant given the changing political attitudes and views?
Rule/Principle: Covenants may not compel government speech or go against public policy.
Application: Previously held covenants may later become unenforceable amidst changing public policy and sentiment. Covenants are meant to protect a particular
party by radical changes in public policy may deem the purpose of the covenant no longer necessary.
Conclusion:
the Commonwealth of Virginia was responsible for maintaining the monument, which was against public policy as the monument was viewed as an act of speech.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help