A squatter who took title through adverse possession was held to be still subject to a covenant binding the dispossessed owner, and would bind all owners subsequent to the squatter who are not BF purchasers without notice (If they were BF purchasers without notice they would not be bound).
They are taken to have constructive notice.
If there was a restrictive covenant “analogous to a negative easement, then the squatter would take the land subject to the paramount right created by the obligation imposed by the covenant which adhered to the land, and the burden of that covenant would pass to those persons who might become assignees of the land or might acquire in any way a title to the land.”
A BF purchaser without notice is availed of the covenant, but the burden is on the one claiming this to be the case, and this has not been achieved here.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law | Restrictive Covenants Notes (38 pages) |