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 Employment Contracts Uk In Pennsylvania
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
Pennsylvania courts blue-pencil when “a covenant imposes restrictions broader than necessary to protect the employer” (Pharmethod, Inc.
Non-compete clauses are enforceable and legal in Pennsylvania as long as they reasonably protect the business' interest and have reasonable duration and geographic restrictions.
Pennsylvania courts have generally found non-compete agreements to be enforceable if the agreement is incident to an employment relationship between the employer and employee; the restriction imposed is reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer's business interest; and the restrictions imposed are ...
My limited understanding is, restrictive covenants are only enforceable by a home owners association created among them. A local government isn't going to swoop in and enforce, or defend, a covenant that you created on your property. The local government is only concerned with land use ordinance's and state laws.
Covenants are legally binding and enforceable by the court. What might a covenant restrict? A covenant can restrict the appearance of a development, for example its height, size or quantity, or it can restrict the activity that takes place on a plot, such as allowing only agricultural or residential use.
Non-competition, non-dealing and non-solicitation restrictive covenants are only enforceable under English law if the employer can demonstrate that: it has a legitimate business interest that it is seeking to protect; and.
Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has made it clear that non-compete agreements and restrictive covenants are not favored in Pennsylvania and are viewed as a trade restraint that prevents a former employee from earning a living.
The courts will restrain an ex-employee from violating a restrictive covenant only when the circumstances make it reasonable to enforce. However, a Pennsylvania court will look only at the terms when the ex-employer sues for damages, not an injunction.