Witter v. Taggart
573 N.Y.S.2d 146, 78 N.Y.2d 234, 577 N.E.2d 338 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is not bound by a restrictive covenant that does not appear in their direct chain of title, as they are not charged with constructive notice of covenants recorded outside of that direct chain.
Facts:
- A common grantor, Lawrance, owned a large tract of land.
- In 1951, Lawrance conveyed a parcel to Witter's predecessor in title, with the deed containing a restrictive covenant prohibiting the construction of docks on Lawrance's retained land to protect the parcel's view.
- This 1951 deed stated the covenant ran with the land being sold (the dominant estate).
- In 1963, Witter purchased the dominant parcel, receiving a deed that included all rights of his grantor.
- In 1962, Lawrance's heirs conveyed the retained, allegedly servient, parcel to the Taggarts' predecessor in title; this deed made no reference to the restrictive covenant.
- The Taggarts purchased the servient parcel in 1984, and their deed not only lacked the covenant but expressly permitted the construction of a dock.
- The Taggarts subsequently erected a 70-foot dock on their property.
- Witter objected, claiming the dock violated the scenic easement protected by the covenant in his chain of title.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Witter sued defendants Taggarts in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) seeking an injunction to compel the removal of their dock.
- The Taggarts moved for summary judgment, and Witter cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the Taggarts' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Witter's complaint.
- Witter, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Taggarts, as appellees.
- Witter, as appellant, was granted a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a restrictive covenant that is recorded in the chain of title for the dominant estate but not in the chain of title for the servient estate bind the owner of the servient estate who purchased without actual notice of the covenant?
Opinions:
Majority - Bellacosa, J.
No. A restrictive covenant does not bind the owner of the servient estate if it does not appear in their direct chain of title. The law has long favored the free and unencumbered use of real property, and courts will only enforce restrictions that have been established with clear and convincing proof. Under the grantor-grantee indexing system used in Suffolk County, a purchaser is only charged with constructive notice of matters recorded within their direct chain of title. To require a purchaser to search the chain of title for every parcel ever conveyed by a common grantor would place an unreasonable burden on purchasers and undermine the purpose of the recording acts, which is to provide reliability and certainty in land ownership. The Taggarts' deed did not contain the restriction, nor did any other deed in their direct chain of title. Therefore, they had no constructive notice of the covenant and are not bound by it.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that constructive notice of a restrictive covenant is generally limited to the purchaser's direct chain of title in a grantor-grantee indexing system. It reaffirms the precedent set by Buffalo Academy of Sacred Heart v Boehm Bros. and clarifies that a buyer's duty to search for encumbrances does not extend to reviewing the deeds of neighboring properties, even if they originate from a common grantor. This holding enhances the certainty and predictability of title examination, protecting bona fide purchasers from unrecorded or 'stray' encumbrances and placing the burden on the dominant landowner to ensure covenants are properly recorded against the servient estate.
