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 Independent Contractor In Santa Clara
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Santa Clara
Control #:
US-00404BG
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
As with many things, however, California is different. California law explicitly voids all non-compete agreements for employees and independent contractors. These agreements are simply not enforceable, no matter how reasonable they may seem.
For more than 150 years, California has declared non-compete agreements unenforceable. In 1941, California codified its prohibition on non-competes in California Business and Professions Code sections 16600-16607.
Noncompetes in the employment law context are expressly unlawful. Employers must notify California employees (and former employees) hired after January 1, 2022, that their noncompetes are void. (Employers had a deadline of February 14, 2024, to do this.)
An employee can challenge a restrictive covenant if they believe it is unreasonable or prevents them from finding suitable employment. If the covenant is too broad or not essential to protecting the employer's business, it may be deemed unenforceable by the courts.
Current and Future Agreements Agreements containing impermissible covenants are “unenforceable regardless of where or when the contract was signed” (BPC § 16600.5(a)), and regardless of whether “the employment was maintained outside of California” (BPC § 16600.5(b)).
If a deed restriction is not enforceable, you can choose to ignore it and take on the risk of a neighbor filing suit, or you can seek out a judge's ruling to have the covenant removed from the deed. Obtaining that ruling is easier when no one is actively enforcing the covenant.
Recently, Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills into law that amend the California Business and Professions Code to further strengthen California's laws against restrictive covenants. Effective January 1, 2024, the ban on virtually all non-compete clauses is now codified.
Are discriminatory restrictive covenants illegal? Generally, yes. Since the United States Supreme Court's 1948 decision in the case Shelley v. Kraemer, restrictive covenants based on race have been unenforceableA contract will not be enforced by a court of law..
In Ontario, non-compete clauses for independent contractors need to be reasonable in scope and duration. They should not exceed what is necessary to protect legitimate business interests.