In a deed, a grantee may agree to do something or refrain from doing certain acts. This agreement will become a binding contract between the grantor and the grantee. An example would be an agreement to maintain fences on the property or that the property will only be used for residential purposes. This kind of covenant is binding, not only between the grantor and the grantee, but also runs with the land. This means that anyone acquiring the land from the grantee is also bound by the covenant of the grantee. A covenant that provides that the grantee will refrain from certain conduct is called a restrictive or protective covenant. For example, there may be a covenant that no mobile home shall be placed on the property.
A restrictive or protective covenant may limit the kind of structure that can be placed on the property and may also restrict the use that can be made of the land. For example, when a tract of land is developed for individual lots and homes to be built, it is common to use the same restrictive covenants in all of the deeds in order to cause uniform restrictions and patterns on the property. For example, the developer may provide that no home may be built under a certain number of square feet. Any person acquiring a lot within the tract will be bound by the restrictions if they are placed in the deed or a prior recorded deed. Also, these restrictive covenants may be placed in a document at the outset of the development entitled "Restrictive Covenants," and list all the restrictive covenants that will apply to the tracts of land being developed. Any subsequent deed can then refer back to the book and page number where these restrictive covenants are recorded. Any person owning one of the lots in the tract may bring suit against another lot owner to enforce the restrictive covenants. However, restrictive covenants may be abandoned or not enforceable by estoppel if the restrictive covenants are violated openly for a sufficient period of time in order for a Court to declare that the restriction has been abandoned.
Restrictive Covenants For Consultants In Cuyahoga
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Cuyahoga
Control #:
US-00404BG
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
As long as the agreement has not imposed unreasonable limitations on you, chances are the agreement will be enforceable.
In the United States, employers generally use four types of restrictive covenants: (1) covenants not to compete for a certain period of time following the employee's termination from employment (or following a business transaction such as a sale, merger, etc.); (2) covenants not to solicit customers or clients for a ...
Common restrictive covenants include: Non-disclosure provisions prohibiting a party from disclosing the other party's confidential information. Non-solicit provisions, prohibiting one or both parties from soliciting customers or employees of the other party for a specified period of time.
The common belief amongst employees is that non-compete and/or non-solicitation agreements are disfavored and not enforceable. However, the Courts in Ohio have enforced these restrictive agreements under certain circumstances.
In the minority of jurisdictions, like California, courts will likewise disregard the fact that something is labelled as a covenant not to solicit customers and/or clients, and may instead deem it akin to a covenant not to compete and treat it as such.
Ohio's “Blue-Pencil Doctrine” Ohio courts can modify the terms to make them reasonable using the “blue-pencil doctrine.” For example, an overly broad geographic restriction could be adjusted to cover a smaller region instead of nullifying the entire clause.
Under case law, non-competes will only be enforceable if they are no wider than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest (e.g. protection of confidential information or customer contacts) and are not contrary to the public interest.
Ohio's Legal Framework for Non-Compete Agreements Courts will enforce these agreements if they are deemed “reasonable.” The reasonableness of a non-compete agreement depends on its terms and how they balance the legitimate business interests of an employer with fairness to the employee and the public.
North Carolina This state adheres to the strict blue pencil doctrine, such that courts may not rewrite the covenant, but sever overbroad provisions and enforce the remainder. Ohio This state follows the “reasonable alteration” approach, in which courts have discretion to modify an overbroad covenant.