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 Shareholders Agreements In Texas
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
A bill was introduced in Texas in 2007 to create covenant marriage in the state, but it failed to pass. Biblical teachings are the backbone of covenant marriage, with the belief that marriage is a lifelong promise between both parties to the marriage and God.
The new law will require that homeowners association policies must include general categories of restrictive covenants for which the association may assess fines, a schedule of fines for each category of violation, and information on hearings.
A bill was introduced in Texas in 2007 to create covenant marriage in the state, but it failed to pass. Biblical teachings are the backbone of covenant marriage, with the belief that marriage is a lifelong promise between both parties to the marriage and God.
Notably, deed restrictions are not always legally enforceable in Texas. In order to be legally valid, a deed restriction must be reasonable, lawful, and consistent with public policy.
Covenants are either personal, restricting only the party who signs the agreement, or they "run with the land," passing the burden along to subsequent property owners. A restriction is simply a limitation on the use of the land.
Texas law uses the term “restrictive covenants.” Texas Property Code, Section 202.001(4) states: (4) "Restrictive covenant" means any covenant, condition, or restriction contained in a dedicatory instrument, whether mandatory, prohibitive, permissive, or administrative.
Ingly, if, for example, a restrictive covenant between employer and employee includes a five-year term, the covenant is unlikely to be deemed enforceable by a court. In the sale of business context, courts typically are more willing to enforce covenants lasting longer than 1-2 years.
Amendment:If the restriction is contained in a deed, it can be amended by a majority vote of the property owners who are subject to the restriction. Eminent domain:If the restriction is considered to be an unreasonable burden on the property, it may be possible to remove it through eminent domain.
Any non-compete agreement that is void under existing law is unenforceable, “regardless of where and when the contract was signed” or where employment was maintained.