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 In Contracts In Maryland
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
If it looks like a restrictive covenant is enforceable and is going to be breached by development, seek to obtain a restrictive covenant title indemnity insurance policy to cover any loss from a claim from a beneficiary. You should insure the full gross development value of the property affected.
The “Blue Pencil” Doctrine When the court blue pencils overbroad language in a non-compete agreement, it is only permitted to remove the offensive contractual language, not to supplement or to rearrange any of the language. See Fowler v. Printers II, Inc., 89 Md. App.
Effective Oct. 1, 2023, Maryland employers may not impose noncompete, conflict of interest, or similar agreements on employees that make $41,350 or less annually.
Restrictive Covenants, Explained This restricts how homeowners can manage and modify their land. Examples include restrictions on fence options, the type of animals allowed and the use of outbuildings, such as sheds.
If the non-compete agreement poses an undue hardship on the employee, Maryland courts may find it unenforceable. In conducting an undue hardship analysis, the court balances the legitimate business interests of the employer against the potential hardship the employee will experience.
Enforceability of Non-Competition Agreements in Maryland If the agreement is too broad or vague, it is unlikely that a court will enforce the agreement. When a non-competition agreement is challenged, Courts in Maryland will generally enforce the agreement only: Against an employee providing unique services.
To be enforceable, a restrictive covenant must be reasonably limited in duration. In some cases, a three year limitation might be acceptable, while, in other cases, one year would be too long. The restriction must also be sufficiently limited in a geographic scope.
In Maryland, a “noncompete . . . provision in an employment contract . . . that restricts the ability of the employee to enter into employment with a new employer or to become self-employed in the same or similar business or trade shall be null and void as against the public policy of the State.”