Defenses… vs. Legal defense equitable defense (i.e. can be raised against any Legal defenses adverse possession/SoL) restriction… whereas, in many jurisdictions, can ONLY be raised equitable defenses … against certain restrictions Less likely that an will equitable defense PR/PT/EI… “knock out” esp. in Eastern states, where are viewed more so as PR/PT/EI … than (as opposed to in more liberal “estates” “remedial devices” Western states) In some jurisdictions (i.e. CA), defenses can be brought up by grantee before – actually violating restriction as initial action to (“knock quiet title – out” restriction in advance) CCP § 1060 (as noted in allows grantee (who possesses land subject Hess) to restriction) to obtain such (“pre-breach declaratory relief judgment”)… BUT, some courts do NOT waste time w/ informational judgments … (ONLY a “real” dispute)… thus, grantee would have to violate restriction (AND thereby risk losing … title) to determine whether defense is valid vs. Laches estoppel (NO specific time limit, BUT within Laches – “equitable SoL” “reasonable time”) detrimental reliance Estoppel – Do NOT need reliance w/ laches… BUT, do NOT need long period of time w/ estoppel … purpose of restriction no longer achievable Changed conditions – When facts support 3 changed conditions potential outcomes… Restriction is gone Scope of restriction is less narrow (restriction still controls, BUT permissible uses expanded) Estate is gone (“return to sender”) In lot owner wants gone Bolotin, purposes “residential only”-restriction (outcome so as to use property for commercial purposes (appraiser #1), claims lot is economically worthless if restricted to residential purposes)… BUT, purposes are much broader than economic benefits
Defenses… Legal defense vs. equitable defense Legal defenses (i.e. adverse possession/SoL) can be raised against any restriction… … whereas, in many jurisdictions, equitable defenses can ONLY be raised against certain restrictions Less likely that an equitable defense will “knock out” PR/PT/EI… … esp. in Eastern states, where PR/PT/EI are viewed more so as “estates” than “remedial devices” (as opposed to in more liberal Western states) In some jurisdictions (i.e. CA), defenses can be brought up by grantee – before actually violating restriction – as initial action to quiet title (“knock out” restriction in advance) CCP § 1060 (as noted in Hess) allows grantee (who possesses land subject to restriction) to obtain such declaratory relief (“pre-breach judgment”)… … BUT, some courts do NOT waste time w/ informational judgments (ONLY a “real” dispute)… … thus, grantee would have to violate restriction (AND thereby risk losing title) to determine whether defense is valid Laches vs. estoppel Laches – “equitable SoL” (NO specific time limit, BUT within “reasonable time”) Estoppel – detrimental reliance Do NOT need reliance w/ laches… … BUT, do NOT need long period of time w/ estoppel Changed conditions – purpose of restriction no longer achievable When facts support changed conditions 3 potential outcomes… Restriction is gone Scope of restriction is less narrow (restriction still controls, BUT permissible uses expanded) Estate is gone (“return to sender”) In Bolotin, lot owner wants “residential purposes only”-restriction gone (outcome #1), so as to use property for commercial purposes (appraiser claims lot is economically worthless if restricted to residential purposes)… BUT, purposes are much broader than economic benefits
Property-2_Coskran-Spring-2009.docx