Drake Week 13 brief

.docx

School

University of Notre Dame *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

197

Subject

English

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

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