DOCSLIB.ORG

The Two Faces of Restrictive Covenants Thwarting Development, but Enhancing Desirability and Market Value

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Two Faces of Restrictive Covenants Thwarting Development, but Enhancing Desirability and Market Value STATEWIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY SINCE 1878 VOL. 222 NO. 39 MonDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2016 NJLJ.coM REAL ESTATE, TITLE INSURANCE & CONSTRUCTION LAW The Two Faces of Restrictive Covenants Thwarting development, but enhancing desirability and market value By David R. Pierce any people believe that restric- tive covenants are antiquities Mnot to be seen in their lifetime, however, a recent unpublished Appel- late Division case, Welch v. Chai Ctr. for Living Judaism, Nos. A-4088-13T1, A-4163-13T1, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. BY IS PHOTO LEXIS 1906 (App. Div. Aug. 15, 2016), should serve as a reminder of their effects. TO CK Restrictive covenants are restrictions contained in a deed which run with the land and either restrict the use of the the view shed of the other properties must: 1) apply equally to all lots within land or prohibit specified uses. Thus, involved. See e.g. Perelman v. Casiello, the scheme; 2) create a reciprocal ben- restrictive covenants can have critical 392 N.J. Super. 412 (App. Div. 2007). efit for all lots that are subjected to impacts on proposed development of Neighborhood schemes may also incor- the burden of the restriction; and 3) be the land. On one hand, they can thwart porate restrictions on setbacks and other reasonably uniform so as not to impose proposed development, as in the Welch improvements in order to promote or an inequitable burden or benefit. Id. at case, but alternatively, they can be used maintain a pleasing visual aspect of the 334 (quoting Olson v. Jantausch, 44 N.J. to enhance the desirability and market development. Super. 380 (App. Div. 1957). value of some developments, particularly In Homann v. Torchinsky, 296 N.J. Restrictive covenants, including residential developments. Super. 326 (1997), a restrictive covenant neighborhood schemes, are deemed to Restrictive covenants are commonly was incorporated into the development be perpetual and run with the land unless used either to protect, in some fashion, of Birchwood Lakes by the developer there is an expressed intent to limit its another property or as part of an overall and affected approximately 198 homes. duration or to create a benefit for an development scheme intended to mutu- The restrictive covenant provided, in individual rather than another property. ally benefit all properties in the devel- part, that “no lot shall be used except Perelman at 419. Nevertheless, a restric- opment. One typical use of restrictive for residential purposes.” Id. at 329. tive covenant may be deemed unenforce- covenants has been found in shore com- While there were other provisions in the able because of changed conditions that munities where they are used to impose restrictive covenant that created some frustrate the purpose of the restriction, various restrictions intended to protect ambiguities, the Homann court found because of equities that make unmodi- that the clear intent of the portion of the fied enforcement unjust, or because the restrictive covenant being debated was to parties have abandoned the restrictive Pierce chairs the Real Estate, Land Use prohibit the use of property in the devel- covenant. Id.; Homann at 336. and Environmental practice at Lindabury, opment from use for anything other than Abandonment is not evidenced by McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper in Westfield. He has served as chairman of the Joint residential purposes. minor violations of a restrictive cov- Environmental Committee of the Union County To successfully establish a restric- enant. To constitute an abandonment of Alliance, the Linden Industrial Association and tive covenant constituting a neighbor- a restrictive covenant, the violations in the Gateway Chamber of Commerce. hood scheme, the restrictive covenant question must be such that they denote a change in the neighborhood or a clear (6) Whether the covenant imposes the meaning of restrictive covenants must intent of the property owners to abandon an unreasonable restraint on trade be “clear and free of doubt.” Caullett v. the original plan. Homann at 336 (citing or secures a monopoly for the Stanley Stilwell & Sons, 67 N.J. Super. LeFetra v. Beveridge, 124 N.J. Eq. 24 covenanter. This may be the case in 111 (App. Div. 1061). (E. & A. 1938). In Homann it was found areas where there is limited space There are numerous cases finding that a restrictive covenant limiting prop- available to conduct certain busi- restrictive covenants not to be applicable erty use to residential property had not ness activities and a covenant not to because the language did not clearly pro- been abandoned despite prior incidents compete burdens all or most avail- hibit the proposed use, and vice versa. in which properties had been devoted to able locales to prevent them from For instance, in the unreported Welch other than residential use, because such competing in such an activity. case, the court found that a property uses were isolated instances and did (7) Whether the covenant interferes could not be used for a house of worship not vitiate the neighborhood scheme. In with the public interest. because the restrictive covenant stated addition, the president of the homeown- (8) Whether, even if the covenant that the property “shall be restricted to ers association provided testimony indi- was reasonable at the time it was one private dwelling house for one fam- cating that there was limited budget to executed, “changed circumstances” ily with garage appurtenant thereto.” bring enforcement actions against those now make the covenant unreason- Welch at 6. While the restriction did not who violated the covenant. Thus, despite able. prohibit a house of worship, the court the fact that a prior owner was a doctor Id. at 211-212. (Citations omitted.) found that the intent of the restriction who had treated patients in the house After trial on remand, the Appel- was clearly to limit the use of the prop- 20 years earlier, the restrictive covenant late Division in Davidson Bros. v. D. erty to residential use. Similarly, in Ritter was found to be enforceable against the Katz & Sons, 274 N.J. Super. 159 (App. v. Jersey City Dist. Missionary Soc. of new owner who wanted to set up an oral Div. 1994), determined that a restrictive M.E. Church, 105 N.J. Eq. 122, 123-124 surgery home occupation. Id. at 337-338. covenant prohibiting the use of property (N.J. Ch. 1929), the court prohibited the In general, the enforcement of a as a supermarket for 40 years, and cre- use of a property for a church where the restrictive covenant depends upon its rea- ated by a supermarket that had relocated deed restriction stated that “[n]ot more sonableness. Davidson Bros. v. D. Katz from the property, was unenforceable. than one (1) house shall be erected on & Sons, 121 N.J. 196, 210 (1990). The The impact on the public and the lack of each such fifty-feet frontage, nor shall New Jersey Supreme Court identified suitable sites for other supermarkets in any house be designed for use by more eight factors to be evaluated when deter- the immediate vicinity led the court to than one (1) family.” mining whether a restrictive covenant conclude the enforcement of the restric- In other cases, language of a restric- was reasonable: tive covenant would be contrary to public tion has been deemed inadequate to (1) The intention of the parties when policy. Id. at 163-171. prohibit the use of properties for multi- the covenant was executed, and Apart from the reasonableness of family dwellings. In Bruno v. Hanna, 63 whether the parties had a viable pur- the restrictive covenant, it will only be N.J. Super. 282 (App. Div. 1960), the pose which did not at the time inter- enforced to the extent that its language language in question provided “[t]hat fere with existing commercial laws, and intent are clear. Restrictive cove- no more than one residence or dwell- such as antitrust laws, or public policy. nants are essentially contracts and their ing house shall be erected on any lot (2) Whether the covenant had an interpretation involves the application of hereby conveyed” and “[t]hat the prem- impact on the considerations general legal principles of contract con- ises hereby conveyed shall be used for exchanged when the covenant was struction, the most basic of which seeks dwelling purposes only ….” This lan- originally executed. This may pro- to determine the parties’ intent. While guage was found by the court not suf- vide a measure of the value to the restrictive covenants are permissible, they ficient to evidence an intent to prohibit parties of the covenant at the time. are disfavored by the courts because they the erection of multi-family duplexes on (3) Whether the covenant clearly and impair the alienability of the land, Bubis the properties. expressly sets forth the restrictions. v. Kassin, 184 N.J. 612 (2004). Accord- Restrictive covenants can be an (4) Whether the covenant was in ingly, when called upon to interpret and important tool in promoting a neigh- writing, recorded and, if so, whether construe restrictive covenants, the courts borhood scheme for a development or the subsequent grantee had actual apply principles of strict construction. If thwarting a proposed development that is notice of the covenant. the purpose of the restriction is obvious deemed incompatible with the develop- (5) Whether the covenant is rea- however, strict construction will not be ment scheme. The utmost care, however, sonable concerning area, time or used to defeat the purpose. Restrictive must be used when crafting the language duration. Covenants that extend for covenants must be evaluated in the con- of the restrictive covenant to make the perpetuity or beyond the terms of a text of the circumstances surrounding intent and restrictions as clear as pos- lease may often be unreasonable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Leases and the Rule Against Perpetuities
    LEASES AND THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES EDWIN H. ABBOT, JUNIOR of the Boston Bar INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to consider the application of the rule against perpetuities to leases. A leasehold estate has certain peculiari- ties which distinguish it, as a practical matter, from other estates in land. At common law it required no livery of seisin, and so could be created to begin in futuro. Although it is not an estate of freehold the duration of the estate may be practically unlimited-it may be for 999 years or even in perpetuity. The reversion after an estate for years is necessarily vested, no matter how long the term of the lease may be, yet the leasehold estate is generally terminable at an earlier time upon numerous conditions subsequent, defined in the lease. In other words the leasehold estate determines without condition by the effluxion of the term defined in the lease but such termination may be hastened by the happening of one or more conditions. The application of the rule against perpetuities to such an estate presents special problems. The purpose of this article is to consider the application of the rule to the creation, termination and renewal of leases; and also its effect upon options inserted in leases. II CREATION A leasehold estate may be created to begin in futuro, since livery of seisin was not at common law required for its creation. Unless limited by the rule a contingent lease might be granted to begin a thousand years hence. But the creation of a contingent estate for years to begin a thousand years hence is for practical reasons just as objectionable as the limitation of a contingent fee to begin at such a remote period by means of springing or shifting uses, or by the device of an execu- tory devise.
    [Show full text]
  • Covenants in a Lease Which Run with the Land
    COVENANTS IN A LEASE WHICH RUN WITH THE LAND EDwiN H. ADBoT, JR. Assistant Attorney-General, Massachusetts I PRELIMINARY The purpose of this article is to consider anew the tests which deter- mine whether a covenant in a lease will run with the land. The subject is by no means novel. The leading case was decided in 1583,1 if the resolutions promulgated in Spencer's Case can be considered a decision. But in view of the seeming conflict between the first and second reso- 'Spencer's Case (1583, K. B.) 51Co. Rep. 16a. The first two resolutions read as follows: i. When the covenant extends to a thing in esse, parcel of the demise, the thing to be done by force of the covenant is quodammodo annexed and appurtenant to the thing demised, and shall go with the land, and shall bind the assignee although he be not bound by express words: but when the covenant extends to a thing which is not in being at the time of the demise made, it cannot be appurtenant or annexed to the thing which hath no being: as if the lessee covenants to repair the houses demised to him during the term, that is parcel of the contract, and extends to the support of the thing demised, and therefore is quodammodo annexed appurtenant to houses, and shall bind the assignee although he be not bound expressly by the covenant: but in the case at bar, the covenant concerns a thing which was not in esse at the time of the demise made, but to be newly built after, and therefore shall bind the covenantor, his executors or administrators, and not the assignee, for the law will not annex the covenant to a thing which hath no being.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Summary Ownership of Real Property
    Chapter 6 Summary Ownership of Real Property California Real Estate Principles Estate in land - degree of ownership one holds in the land. Feudal system - all land was once owned by the king/government; Allodial System (USA) - although the government detains some rights, individuals own property without proprietary control of government. Freehold estate - the estate lasts at least a lifetime; leasehold estate - renting or leasing. Types of freehold: • Fee Simple (Fee Simple Absolute) - Owns the bundle of rights – unlimited duration; inheritable. • Fee Simple Defeasible is based on an occurrence of a specified event – conditions. • Fee Tail - Property inherited by a monarch is illegal in the United States. • Life Estate: Voluntary Life Estates or "Conventional Life Estates." o Estate in Reversion • A life estate that is deeded to a life tenant - incomplete bundle of rights during lifetime. • A reversion estate that is retained by the grantor. After death of life tenant, grantor has complete bundle of rights. o Estate in remainder: differs from the above because the remainder estate is given to a third party who is known as the remainderman. After death of life tenant, the remainderman has complete bundle of rights. o Pur Autre Vie (estate in reversion/estate in remainder) - life tenant has the incomplete bundle of rights until a third party dies. o Involuntary Life Estates are legal life estates or marital right. It is not possible to sell the property without the consent of the partner, or to own property in one name only. o Dower - a wife's interest in the husband's property; Curtesy - a husband's interest in a wife's property; Homestead - protection against unsecured debts for the party who did not sign for the loan.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Environmental Covenants Act
    UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS ACT drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-TWELFTH YEAR WASHINGTON, DC AUGUST 1-7, 2003 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright ©2003 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS September 27, 2018 DRAFTING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS ACT WILLIAM R. BREETZ, JR., University of Connecticut School of Law, Connecticut Urban Legal Initiative, 35 Elizabeth Street, Room K-202, Hartford, CT 06105, Chair MARION W. BENFIELD, JR., 10 Overlook Circle, New Braunfels, TX 78132 DAVID D. BIKLEN, 153 N. Beacon St., Hartford, CT 06105 STEPHEN C. CAWOOD, 108 ½ Kentucky Ave., P.O. Drawer 128, Pineville, KY 40977-0128 BRUCE A. COGGESHALL, One Monument Sq., Portland, ME 04101 FRANK W. DAYKIN, 2180 Thomas Jefferson Dr., Reno, NV 89509, Committee on Style Liaison THEODORE C. KRAMER, 45 Walnut St., Brattleboro, VT 05301 DONALD E. MIELKE, Ken Caryl Starr Centre, 7472 S. Shaffer Ln., Suite 100, Littleton, CO 80127 LARRY L. RUTH, 530 S. 13th St., Suite 110, Lincoln, NE 68508-2820, Enactment Plan Coordinator HIROSHI SAKAI, 3773 Diamond Head Circle, Honolulu, HI 96815 YVONNE L. THARPES, Legislature of the Virgin Islands, Capitol Building, P.O. Box 1690, St. Thomas, VI 00804 MICHELE L. TIMMONS, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 700 State Office Bldg., 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 KURT A. STRASSER, University of Connecticut School of Law, 65 Elizabeth St., Hartford, CT 06105-2290, Reporter EX OFFICIO K.
    [Show full text]
  • Covenant Marriage: Legislating Family Values
    COVENANT MARRIAGE: LEGISLATING FAMILY VALUES A MY L. STEWART* INTRODUCTION Hardly a social problem exists that has not been attributed to the breakdown of the American family, and hardly has there been a time in American history when this has not been true. Today, a decline in “family values” is blamed for crime, drug use, low educational achievement, poverty, and probably in some circles, for the weather. The solution to these problems, the theory goes, is to save the family, and the way to save the family is to make it harder to get divorced. In some states, conservative lawmakers are charging to the rescue. They propose a concept called “covenant marriage,” a sort of “marriage deluxe” that would be slightly harder to enter and much harder to exit than a “regular” marriage. Their goal is to reduce the divorce rate by preventing bad marriages before they begin and by restricting divorce once a couple is married. In July 1997, Louisiana became the first state to pass a covenant marriage bill.1 This Note assesses the likely effectiveness of such a measure. It concludes that marriages are better made in the human heart than in the statehouse halls. Part I of this Note reviews the evolution of American divorce law to provide an historical context for the current movement to reform those laws. As one product of this new reform movement, the covenant marriage proposal itself is described in detail. In an effort to evaluate whether new restrictions on divorce will improve social conditions, the current, less restrictive scheme of no-fault divorce is analyzed to determine whether it has been responsible for adverse social consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • Covenant Marriage: a Fact Sheet
    Covenant Marriage: A Fact Sheet Examining covenant marriage and its take up rate in the states that have enacted it Background could do so. These laws, in conjunction with other social shifts, led to sharp increases of divorce rates in Marriage is a long held tradition in many cultures. It the 1980s. is the legal and/or often religious ceremony joining two people in the eyes of a family, religion and/or As the public came to understand that half of mar- government. Traditionally, marriage is “until death do riages end in divorces, a movement to restore a us part.” However, it is a social contract that can be traditional model of lifelong monogamous marriages broken. Before 1970, getting a divorce meant prov- and reduce divorce began in the 1990s. Covenant ing that one spouse had done something wrong or marriage is an approach to divorce reform that allows had acted in a way that caused the breakdown of the couples to opt for a marriage that is more difficult to marriage. Someone had to be at “fault,” which meant end than the “standard” marriage granted in most that grounds for the divorce had to be established. states. It is completely voluntary, only available in a Such grounds might have included adultery, physical few states, and somewhat controversial. This Fact or mental abuse, abandonment, confinement or hold- Sheet examines what is known about covenant ing against one’s will, insanity and the inability to be marriage and its take up rate in the states that have intimate with your spouse.
    [Show full text]
  • Off-Record Risks for Bona Fide Purchasers of Interests in Real Property
    Volume 72 Issue 1 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 72, 1967-1968 10-1-1967 Off-Record Risks for Bona Fide Purchasers of Interests in Real Property Ralph T. Straw Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation Ralph T. Straw Jr., Off-Record Risks for Bona Fide Purchasers of Interests in Real Property, 72 DICK. L. REV. 35 (1967). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol72/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OFF-RECORD RISKS FOR BONA FIDE PURCHASERS OF INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY By RALPH L. STRAW, JR.* Introduction I. Forgeriesand Frauds A. Forged Instruments B. FraudulentReleases C. Defrauding of a Grantor II. Incapacity of a Grantor A. Mental Incapacity of a Grantor B. Infant Grantor C. Legal Incapacity II. Lack of an Essential Formality in the Execution of an Instrument A. Lack of Delivery B. Lack of Acknowledgment IV. Mechanics' Liens V. UnrecordedFamily Rights A. Dower B. Rights of Pretermittedor After-Born Children C. Community Property Rights VI. PriorAdverse Possessionand Undisclosed Easements A. PriorAdverse Possession B. Undisclosed PrescriptiveEasements C. Undisclosed Implied Easements VII. Failure to Inquire with respect to Possession Not on its Face Inconsistent with Purchaser'sRights VIII. Tolled Limitations Periods IX. Prior Holder in Chain of Title Senior in Record but Junior in Time of Actual Notice X.
    [Show full text]
  • Condominiums
    Condominiums CONX01 Declaration Exception (with Option or First Refusal) Terms, provisions, option, right of first refusal, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges, assessments, and liens provided by applicable condominium law or the Condominium Declaration and Bylaws recorded ___________, but omitting any covenant, condition or restriction, if any, based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin unless and only to the extent that the covenant, condition or restriction (a) is exempt under Title 42 of the United States Code, or (b) relates to handicap, but does not discriminate against handicapped persons. CONX02 Declaration Exception (with Option or First Refusal) - Violation Does Not Affect Good Faith Mortgage Terms, provisions, option, right of first refusal, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges, assessments, and liens provided by applicable condominium law or the Condominium Declaration and Bylaws recorded ___________, but omitting any covenant, condition or restriction, if any, based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin unless and only to the extent that the covenant, condition or restriction (a) is exempt under Title 42 of the United States Code, or (b) relates to handicap, but does not discriminate against handicapped persons. The Condominium Declaration and Bylaws also provide that any violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of a mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value. CONX03 Declaration
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Roads and Easements
    Maine Law Review Volume 48 Number 2 Article 3 April 2018 Maine Roads and Easements Knud E. Hermansen Donald R. Richards Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr Part of the Land Use Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Knud E. Hermansen & Donald R. Richards, Maine Roads and Easements, 48 Me. L. Rev. 197 (2018). Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol48/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MAINE ROADS AND EASEMENTS Knud E. Hermansen & Donald R. Richards I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 200 II. EASEMENT TERMS AND CLASSIFICATIONS ............. 202 A. Appurtenant Easements and Easements in Gross .. 203 B. Public Easements and Private Easements .......... 204 III. EASEMENT STATUS AND USES ........................ 205 A. Easement or Fee Simple Title ...................... 205 1. Operative Records ............................. 206 2. Common Law ................................. 206 3. Range-Ways and Range-Roads ................. 207 B. Title Within the Easement ......................... 209 C. Multiple Uses/Easements .......................... 210 D. CorrelativeRights and Appurtenances ............. 211 1. Express or Clearly Intended ................... 211 2. Implied Rights and Limitations ................ 212 a. Utilities in Private Road Easements ........ 217 b. Utilities in Public Roads .................. 217 c. Obstructions .............................. 218 d. PrescriptiveEasements .................... 218 e. Exclude the Obvious ...................... 220 f Increased Traffic Not Speed ............... 220 g. Subdivision of the Appurtenant Parcel..... 220 h. Accessing Non-Appurtenant Parcels ......
    [Show full text]
  • Occoquan Reservoir License and Covenant Agreement-Private Owner
    After signing return to: Fairfax County Water Authority 8570 Executive Park Avenue Fairfax, VA 22031 Attn: Gregory J. Prelewicz, Manager, Planning Tax Map Parcel No.: ________________ LICENSE AND COVENANT AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AND COVENANT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into this ___ day of ____________, 2020, by and between the FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (“Fairfax Water”), ____________, a Virginia resident (“[NAME 1]”), and ____________, a Virginia resident (“[NAME 2]”) and together with [NAME 1], the “Landowners”). RECITALS The Landowners are the owners of the property located at ____________ and identified as [Prince William or Fairfax] County Tax Map Parcel No. ____________ (the “Property”). A portion of the Property is located adjacent to the Occoquan Reservoir (the “Reservoir”) and is subject to a flood easement for the benefit of Fairfax Water (the “Flood Easement”). The Flood Easement is more particularly described in the deed recorded in Deed Book ___, at page ___ among the land records in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of [Prince William or Fairfax] County, Virginia (the "Land Records"). Activities within the Flood Easement are restricted under the terms of the granting documents in order to protect the integrity of the Reservoir, which serves as a major source of drinking water for the region. All such activities are regulated in accordance with Fairfax Water’s Occoquan Reservoir Shoreline Easement Policy, as amended from time to time, a copy of which is maintained on Fairfax Water’s website (the “Easement Policy”). The Landowners have submitted an application to Fairfax Water seeking approval under the Easement Policy of certain proposed activities within the Flood Easement.
    [Show full text]
  • Deed of Trust / Mortgage
    insurance was required by Lender, shall be applied to restoration or repair of the Property, if the restoration or repair is economically feasible and Lender's security is not lessened. During such repair and restoration period, Lender shall have the right to hold such insurance proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect such Property to ensure the work has been completed to KNOW BEFORE YOU OWE: CLOSINGLender's satisfaction, TIME provided that such inspection shall be undertaken promptly. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. Unless an agreement is made in writing or Applicable Law Deed of Trustrequires interest/ to beMortgage paid on such insurance proceeds, Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on such proceeds. Fees for public adjusters, or other third parties, retained by Borrower shall not be paid out of the insurance proceeds and shall be the sole obligation of Borrower. If the restoration or repair is not economically feasible or Lender's security would be lessened, the insurance proceeds shall be applied to the sums secured by this This document may be called the SecuritySecurity Instrument, Instrument, whether Deed or notof then Trust, due, wi th the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. Such insurance proceeds shall be applied in the order provided for in Section 2. or Mortgage. When you sign this document, youIf Borrower are givingabandons the the Property, lender Lender may file, negotiate and settle any available the right to take your property by foreclosureinsurance if claimyou and fail related to mapaytters.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Prescriptive Easement Law
    Maine Prescriptive Easement Law Christofer confesses faultlessly while flailing Thad dehorts sportily or excavated insidiously. Overkind and retiary Morty contusing, but Anson philologically abrogated her drapers. Perigeal and defendable Langston never reinsures his Atherton! Maine Supreme appeal Court with one whereas: the nature and extent of public offer private rights regarding coastal access will by to be one issue in Maine into the future. If you without given this company a license then the statutory period does not continue until now lord you mention now revoking the license. Thank you have a prescriptive right to prescription is best ways that their guests may be destroyed by demonstrating a technical covenant sealed by maps api key. The prescriptive use which represent a case to realize that will be present on available to pass by use must consider signing multiple books. Enter your email address to fraud your reset password link. The easement in prescription are described in accordance with disqus head to this light. The trail, public opinion, an Easement via gift deed is war and stays with appropriate land. While property owners then there were straightforward way that they do i be subject to a substantial protection from obtaining a reasonable and laws. An easement being signed legislation making it. What are prescriptive easement language that you can be noticed and laws of law? The maine court determined, among neighbors are maine law court suggest one part of record of those areas and unregulated utilities. If an automatic overburden of a superior court entered or otherwise does not mean an unanticipated easement.
    [Show full text]