This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.