Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Taggarts (D) erected a 70-foot dock on their canal side frontage. D did this after discovering that his deed expressly permitted such a structure. Witter (P) complained of a violation of his scenic easement to an unobstructed view of the creek and adjacent nature preserve allegedly protected by a restrictive covenant contained in his chain of title. P sued to compel D to dismantle the dock and to enjoin any such building in the future. The lower court determined that P's covenants did not burden D's land in that the covenant in P's title appeared nowhere in D's chain of title. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co