Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1957–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marra v. Aetna Construction Co.green2 sentences2020A servitude burdening Blackacre and benefiting Whiteacre was created”]; e.g., Self v. Sharafi, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 486-487 [restriction created by single owner of adjoining lots was a covenant running with the land under section 1462]; accord, Marra v. Aetna Construction, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 [doctrine of equitable servitudes is not limited to restrictions imposed pursuant to a general plan for improving an entire tract or real estate subdivision, but may be enforced though they benefit or restrict only a single parcel of land]; Dudek v. Dudek (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 154, 166 [ap 2013The Building Restriction Is a Covenant Running with the Land Under Section 1462 Section 1462 provides: “Every covenant contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” “The decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 .) Conversely, when a covenant benefits, and does not burden, the proper | 3 | 5 |
Mock v. Shulmangreen2 sentences2013(Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 266 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 39 ] [restriction imposed against all lots in a tract against growing any hedge over six feet in height within 15 feet of boundary line of adjoining lot was for the mutual benefit of the entire tract and the owners of the separate lots therein]; Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas (1979) 378 Mass. 85 [ 390 N.E.2d 243, 247 ] [the purpose of all building restrictions is to enhance the market value of the promisee’s land].) The Selfs argue that the building restriction is not a covenant running with the land under section 1462 because 2013(Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 266 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 39 ] [restriction imposed against all lots in a tract against growing any hedge over six feet in height within 15 feet of boundary line of adjoining lot was for the mutual benefit of the entire tract and the owners of the separate lots therein]; Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas (1979) 378 Mass. 85 [ 390 N.E.2d 243, 247 ] [the purpose of all building restrictions is to enhance the market value of the promisee’s land].) The Selfs argue that the building restriction is not a covenant running with the land under section 1462 because | 2 | 2 |
Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silvergreen2 sentences2013As the Supreme Court stated in Marra , “[t]he decisions have *491 interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 , italics added; see Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964, 972 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] [“Only the benefit of a covenant runs; covenants which burden the covenantee/grantee’s land will not bind subsequent transferees.” (italics added)]; Standard Oil Co. v. Slye (1913) 164 Cal. 2013As the Supreme Court stated in Marra , “[t]he decisions have *491 interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 , italics added; see Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964, 972 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] [“Only the benefit of a covenant runs; covenants which burden the covenantee/grantee’s land will not bind subsequent transferees.” (italics added)]; Standard Oil Co. v. Slye (1913) 164 Cal. | 2 | 2 |
Sacramento Suburan Fruit Lands Co. v. Whaleygreen2 sentences2013The Building Restriction Is a Covenant Running with the Land Under Section 1462 Section 1462 provides: “Every covenant contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” “The decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 .) Conversely, when a covenant benefits, and does not burden, the proper 2013The Building Restriction Is a Covenant Running with the Land Under Section 1462 Section 1462 provides: “Every covenant contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” “The decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 .) Conversely, when a covenant benefits, and does not burden, the proper | 2 | 2 |
Standard Oil Co. v. Slyegreen2 sentences2013As the Supreme Court stated in Marra , “[t]he decisions have *491 interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 , italics added; see Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964, 972 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] [“Only the benefit of a covenant runs; covenants which burden the covenantee/grantee’s land will not bind subsequent transferees.” (italics added)]; Standard Oil Co. v. Slye (1913) 164 Cal. 2013As the Supreme Court stated in Marra, "[t]he decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome 9 covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee." (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 , italics added; Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964, 972 ["Only the benefit of a covenant runs; covenants which burden the covenantee/grantee's land will not bind subsequent transferees." (Italics added.)]; Standard Oil Co. v. Slye (1913) 164 Cal. 435, 442 [covenant in a lea | 2 | 2 |
Los Angeles Terminal Land Co. v. Muirgreen2 sentences2013(Oceanside, at p. 174.) The court cited Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d 375 , and Muir, supra, 136 Cal. 36 , for the proposition that a covenant does not run with the land under section 1462 if it burdens property. 2013As the Supreme Court stated in Marra , “[t]he decisions have *491 interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 , italics added; see Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 964, 972 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 38 ] [“Only the benefit of a covenant runs; covenants which burden the covenantee/grantee’s land will not bind subsequent transferees.” (italics added)]; Standard Oil Co. v. Slye (1913) 164 Cal. | 2 | 2 |
Richardson v. Callahangreen2 sentences2013(See Richardson v. Callahan (1931) 213 Cal. 683, 689 [ 3 P.2d 927 ]; Sacramento Suburban Fruit, supra, 50 Cal.App. at p. 130 .) Courts interpreting section 1462 “ ‘have uniformly adopted the view that if the covenant tends to enhance or increase the value of the land, it is a direct benefit within the meaning of the [statute] and therefore runs with the land.’ ” (Anthony; supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at p. 511 .) The building restriction in the present case touches and concerns the land because it relates to the use of the restricted land. 2013(See Richardson v. Callahan (1931) 213 Cal. 683, 689 [ 3 P.2d 927 ]; Sacramento Suburban Fruit, supra, 50 Cal.App. at p. 130 .) Courts interpreting section 1462 “ ‘have uniformly adopted the view that if the covenant tends to enhance or increase the value of the land, it is a direct benefit within the meaning of the [statute] and therefore runs with the land.’ ” (Anthony; supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at p. 511 .) The building restriction in the present case touches and concerns the land because it relates to the use of the restricted land. | 1 | 2 |
Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseasgreen2 sentences2013(Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 266 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 39 ] [restriction imposed against all lots in a tract against growing any hedge over six feet in height within 15 feet of boundary line of adjoining lot was for the mutual benefit of the entire tract and the owners of the separate lots therein]; Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas (1979) 378 Mass. 85 [ 390 N.E.2d 243, 247 ] [the purpose of all building restrictions is to enhance the market value of the promisee’s land].) The Selfs argue that the building restriction is not a covenant running with the land under section 1462 because 2013(Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 266 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 39 ] [restriction imposed against all lots in a tract against growing any hedge over six feet in height within 15 feet of boundary line of adjoining lot was for the mutual benefit of the entire tract and the owners of the separate lots therein]; Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas (1979) 378 Mass. 85 [ 390 N.E.2d 243, 247 ] [the purpose of all building restrictions is to enhance the market value of the promisee’s land].) The Selfs argue that the building restriction is not a covenant running with the land under section 1462 because | 1 | 2 |
Oceanside Community Assn. v. Oceanside Land Co.green2 sentences2013The building restriction is a covenant running with the land under section 1462 because it is contained in a grant of real property and directly benefits the land conveyed.5 5 In Oceanside Community Assn. v. Oceanside Land Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 166 (Oceanside), a developer of 932 residences on individual lots recorded CC&R's restricting property it owned adjacent to the residential development to be used as a golf course. 1988(Marra v. Aetna Construction Co. (1940) 15 Cal.2d 375, 378 [ 101 P.2d 490 ]; see also, McCaffrey v. Preston (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 422, 436 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; Oceanside Community Assn. v. Oceanside Land Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 166, 174 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 14 ].) Since the restrictions plaintiffs seek to enforce impose burdens on the Rices’ property, they do not run with the land under section 1462. | 1 | 2 |
Robertson v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2013The Building Restriction Is a Covenant Running with the Land Under Section 1462 Section 1462 provides: “Every covenant contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” “The decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 .) Conversely, when a covenant benefits, and does not burden, the proper 2013The Building Restriction Is a Covenant Running with the Land Under Section 1462 Section 1462 provides: “Every covenant contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” “The decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 .) Conversely, when a covenant benefits, and does not burden, the proper | 1 | 2 |
Scaringe v. J. C. C. Enterprises, Inc.red2 sentences2013Enterprises, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536, 1543 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 344 ].) 10 In light of our conclusion that the building restriction is a covenant running with the land under section 1462, we need not consider whether it is also enforceable as an equitable servitude. 2013Enterprises, Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1536, 1543 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 344 ].) 10 In light of our conclusion that the building restriction is a covenant running with the land under section 1462, we need not consider whether it is also enforceable as an equitable servitude. | 1 | 2 |
Dudek v. Dudekgreen1 sentence2020A servitude burdening Blackacre and benefiting Whiteacre was created”]; e.g., Self v. Sharafi, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 486-487 [restriction created by single owner of adjoining lots was a covenant running with the land under section 1462]; accord, Marra v. Aetna Construction, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 [doctrine of equitable servitudes is not limited to restrictions imposed pursuant to a general plan for improving an entire tract or real estate subdivision, but may be enforced though they benefit or restrict only a single parcel of land]; Dudek v. Dudek (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 154, 166 [ap | 1 | 1 |
McCaffrey v. Prestongreen2 sentences1988(Marra v. Aetna Construction Co. (1940) 15 Cal.2d 375, 378 [ 101 P.2d 490 ]; see also, McCaffrey v. Preston (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 422, 436 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; Oceanside Community Assn. v. Oceanside Land Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 166, 174 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 14 ].) Since the restrictions plaintiffs seek to enforce impose burdens on the Rices’ property, they do not run with the land under section 1462. 1988(Marra v. Aetna Construction Co. (1940) 15 Cal.2d 375, 378 [ 101 P.2d 490 ]; see also, McCaffrey v. Preston (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 422, 436 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; Oceanside Community Assn. v. Oceanside Land Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 166, 174 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 14 ].) Since the restrictions plaintiffs seek to enforce impose burdens on the Rices’ property, they do not run with the land under section 1462. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berryman v. Hotel Savoy Company
green
2 sentences2013Because the Oceanside court’s cursory analysis of the applicability of section 1462 was unnecessary to its decision, and its cited authority does not support its conclusion on that point, we do not view Oceanside as persuasive authority for the proposition that a covenant in a grant of real property that directly benefits the conveyed property does not run under section 1462 if it correspondingly burdens property the grantor retains. 6 Although the MacDonald court stated that the plaintiffs in that case were “technically correct at law" in arguing that the covenant in question did not particul 2013Because the Oceanside court’s cursory analysis of the applicability of section 1462 was unnecessary to its decision, and its cited authority does not support its conclusion on that point, we do not view Oceanside as persuasive authority for the proposition that a covenant in a grant of real property that directly benefits the conveyed property does not run under section 1462 if it correspondingly burdens property the grantor retains. 6 Although the MacDonald court stated that the plaintiffs in that case were “technically correct at law" in arguing that the covenant in question did not particul | 2 | 1957–2013 |
Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2013(Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 266 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 39 ] [restriction imposed against all lots in a tract against growing any hedge over six feet in height within 15 feet of boundary line of adjoining lot was for the mutual benefit of the entire tract and the owners of the separate lots therein]; Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotseas (1979) 378 Mass. 85 [ 390 N.E.2d 243, 247 ] [the purpose of all building restrictions is to enhance the market value of the promisee’s land].) The Selfs argue that the building restriction is not a covenant running with the land under section 1462 because 2013(Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 266 [restriction imposed against all lots in a tract against growing any hedge over six feet in height within 15 feet of boundary line of adjoining lot was for the mutual benefit of the entire tract and the owners of the separate lots therein]; Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. 8 Kotseas (Mass. 1979) 390 N.E.2d 243, 247 [the purpose of all building restrictions is to enhance the market value of the promisee's land].) The Selfs argue that the building restriction is not a covenant running with the land under section 1462 because it burdens their portion of | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Carlson v. Lindauer
green
2 sentences2013The Building Restriction Is a Covenant Running with the Land Under Section 1462 Section 1462 provides: “Every covenant contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” “The decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 .) Conversely, when a covenant benefits, and does not burden, the proper 2013The Building Restriction Is a Covenant Running with the Land Under Section 1462 Section 1462 provides: “Every covenant contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which is made for the direct benefit of the property, or some part of it then in existence, runs with the land.” “The decisions have interpreted [section 1462] to mean that a burdensome covenant contained in a deed which in no way benefits the property conveyed is not binding at law upon the transferees of the grantee.” (Marra, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 378 .) Conversely, when a covenant benefits, and does not burden, the proper | 2 | 2013–2013 |
MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country Club
green
2 sentences2013Among other authority, the Selfs cite the Citizens court’s statement that in light of the statute of frauds, for restrictions to be enforceable “there ‘ “ ‘should be some written evidence’ ” ’ indicating what property was affected by the restrictions.” 0Citizens, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 358 '.) The Selfs also cite MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country Club (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 693 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 367 ] (MacDonald) for the proposition that a deed restriction cannot be enforced as a covenant running with the land if the deed contains no particular description of the dominant tenement to 2013Among other authority, the Selfs cite the Citizens court’s statement that in light of the statute of frauds, for restrictions to be enforceable “there ‘ “ ‘should be some written evidence’ ” ’ indicating what property was affected by the restrictions.” 0Citizens, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 358 '.) The Selfs also cite MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country Club (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 693 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 367 ] (MacDonald) for the proposition that a deed restriction cannot be enforced as a covenant running with the land if the deed contains no particular description of the dominant tenement to | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Chandler v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences2013Because the Oceanside court’s cursory analysis of the applicability of section 1462 was unnecessary to its decision, and its cited authority does not support its conclusion on that point, we do not view Oceanside as persuasive authority for the proposition that a covenant in a grant of real property that directly benefits the conveyed property does not run under section 1462 if it correspondingly burdens property the grantor retains. 6 Although the MacDonald court stated that the plaintiffs in that case were “technically correct at law" in arguing that the covenant in question did not particul 2013Because the Oceanside court’s cursory analysis of the applicability of section 1462 was unnecessary to its decision, and its cited authority does not support its conclusion on that point, we do not view Oceanside as persuasive authority for the proposition that a covenant in a grant of real property that directly benefits the conveyed property does not run under section 1462 if it correspondingly burdens property the grantor retains. 6 Although the MacDonald court stated that the plaintiffs in that case were “technically correct at law" in arguing that the covenant in question did not particul | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Anthony v. Brea Glenbrook Club
green
1 sentence2013(See Richardson v. Callahan (1931) 213 Cal. 683, 689 [ 3 P.2d 927 ]; Sacramento Suburban Fruit, supra, 50 Cal.App. at p. 130 .) Courts interpreting section 1462 “ ‘have uniformly adopted the view that if the covenant tends to enhance or increase the value of the land, it is a direct benefit within the meaning of the [statute] and therefore runs with the land.’ ” (Anthony; supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at p. 511 .) The building restriction in the present case touches and concerns the land because it relates to the use of the restricted land. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co.
green
2 sentences1957(See also Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co., 122 Cal.App. 480 [ 10 P.2d 780 ].) Tinder these cases, the covenant here involved is not a covenant running with the land within the meaning of section 1462. 1957(See also Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co., 122 Cal.App. 480 [ 10 P.2d 780 ].) Tinder these cases, the covenant here involved is not a covenant running with the land within the meaning of section 1462. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.