House A is next door to House B. They are in very close proximity. Between them sits a garage that is attached to House A. However, the owners of house B have the right to use the garage and it's recorded in the deed. I am correct in assuming this is an expressed affirmative easement appurtenant? What would make this a covenant.
Can it be considered an expressed negative real covenant if the servient tenement 'promises' not to use the garage with the purpose of yielding the use of the garage to the dominant tenement?
I do not see how this could not be an easement of the type you mentioned. I'm not in law school yet, but I tried looking up some information on covenant. When I twisted it in a way that does not seem realistic to your scenario I came up with this. Can it be considered an expressed negative real covenant if the servient tenement 'promises' not to use the garage with the purpose of yielding the use of the garage to the dominant tenement?Take what I've said with a grain of salt: I felt compelled to take part. Sorry if I wasted your time.
Well I was not exactly keen on the terms for the parties to real covenants until you stated them.I intended for the servient tenement and dominant tenement to parallel that of benefited and burdened property. Thank you for introducing me to the terms!Was I mistaken about the 'promissory' foundation of my covenant interpretation? Let me try and explain. To the extent of my understanding - a negative real covenant is one that requires someone to promise to not do something. What if the deed mentions that the individual owning the burdened property promises not to use the garage, and also yields its use to that of the benefited property? Wouldn't the promise of not using the garage fall under the term covenant?No idea what I am talking about - I am just participating out of shear interest.