Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. [1]
Although deeds and mortgages today don’t contain racially discriminatory clauses, a historical search of a property’s chain of title may uncover restrictive covenants recorded from the 1920s ...
One year later, on December 2, 1949, US solicitor general Philip Perlman announced that the "FHA could no longer insure mortgages with restrictive covenants". [13] In 1962, the Equal Opportunity in Housing executive order was signed by President John F. Kennedy, prohibiting using federal funds to support racial discrimination in housing. This ...
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
In 1926, racially restrictive covenants were upheld by the Supreme Court case Corrigan v. Buckley. After this ruling, these covenants became popular across the country as a way to guarantee white, homogeneous neighborhoods. [7] In Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. in 1926, the Supreme Court also upheld exclusionary zoning.
In general, he said, covenants that have not been preserved by being re-recorded within the 30-year period will be extinguished under the North Carolina Marketable Title Act.
On the face of it disavowing that covenants can "run with the land" so as to avoid the strict common law's former definition of "running with the land", the case has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1950 as meaning that "covenants enforceable under the rule of Tulk v Moxhay... are properly conceived as running with the land in ...
Poliakoff: There is a five year statute of limitations for townhouse association to enforce covenant violations.