Easements vs. Covenants

[mf22076]

Blackacre is split into Greenacre and Brownacre and a house is built on each parcel near the middle.  A well is on Greenacre to the north and the Septic is on Brownacre to the south. Each party has promised to provide one with water from the well and the other with access to the septic. The agreement is recorded in the conveyance. 

Question?  Are these agreements easements or real covenants?  Or is there both easements for the actual water and sewer lines and then covenants to provide the actual access? 

Thanks,

[UNAS]

i am not a lawyer but i am a real estate developer

and what you infering about is definetly an easement


normally covenants have more to do with what activities will take place on a property

[jsb221]

It's an easement. Covenants are promises to do or not to do something.

[Jihad_Jesus]

Definitely an easement. An easement is an interest in another person's land for specific & limited purposes. A covenant is a promise concerning the appropriate uses of land. Privity doesn't have anything to do with the matter unless your trying to determine if it runs with the land.

Both of these are easements appurtenant and they will run with the land to subsequent purchasers.

If this were a covenant it would be some sort of weird affirmative covenant stating something like "All individual properties within Blackacre must make share with other Blackacre residents any necessities (including water & sewage) which lie exclusively within their property."

[deedeeleigh]

There wouldn't have to be privity unless we were talking about a subsequent owner. The privity between the original parties would be the contract.

On the subject of property...is there a real easy way to tell the difference between executory interests which are contingent v. executory interests that are vested? I know that vested would require an ascertainable person and no conditions...I'm not looking for the definition but actual examples (If X grants to Y for life, and then B so long as B uses the land for a school, and if not to C).

I guess what I don't completely get is the difference between a contingent remainder v. a vested remainder subject to divestment.  Is it really just if the condition is in the clause granting the estate v. just after the clause granting the estate? 

[Jihad_Jesus]

I haven't reviewed this material yet, but I believe the answer would be as follows:

If X grants to Y for life, and then B so long as B uses the land for a school, and if not to C.

B has a vested remainder subject to divestment. B will get the estate when Y dies unless he fails to use it as a school. It will vest to him and stay with him if it's used as a school and he has control over the matter. B doesn't have to do anything but wait for Y to die and it will be transferred to him. If, however, B fails to use the premises as a school then his interest in the property will be divested to C.

C has a contingent remainder. C's ownership of the property is contingent on B using the property as something other than a school. If B doesn't use as a school, then C gets the property. 

That's the best I can explain it and I think it's right. Property is a real female dog.

[slacker]

On the subject of property...is there a real easy way to tell the difference between executory interests which are contingent v. executory interests that are vested? I know that vested would require an ascertainable person and no conditions...I'm not looking for the definition but actual examples (If X grants to Y for life, and then B so long as B uses the land for a school, and if not to C).

I guess what I don't completely get is the difference between a contingent remainder v. a vested remainder subject to divestment.  Is it really just if the condition is in the clause granting the estate v. just after the clause granting the estate? 

Mostly, yes. The language is very important in determining the interest. Part also depends on whether or not every who could take currently exists. You can only have a vested remainder in an ascertained remainderman.

Here's a page that talks about that kind of stuff: http://www.nsulaw.nova.edu/faculty/documents/paragrap.htm

[Astro]

@#!* yeah.  Property rules.  Tag.

[Jihad_Jesus]

@#!* yeah.  Property rules.  Tag.

In which sense do you mean "@#!* yeah. Property rules"?

(A) Do you mean "I am excited. The rules of property!", or
(B) Do you mean "I am excited. Property is exciting!"

Just wondering.   

[resipsaloquitur]

I hate property and in particular: recording acts, RAP, real covenants, and anything SCOTUS has ever tried to explain about regulatory takings.