Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Covenants

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

CovenantsQuestion 1 of 20

A developer subdivided a tract of land into 100 lots for single-family homes. The first 80 deeds executed and recorded by the developer for lots sold contained a covenant restricting construction to single-story dwellings. Your client purchased the 81st lot from the developer. The client's deed did not contain the single-story restriction. The client, who had seen several two-story homes in other nearby neighborhoods, was not aware of the restriction affecting this specific subdivision. The client now wishes to build a two-story home, and a neighbor who was one of the original 80 purchasers has threatened to sue for an injunction.

What is your client's best defense against the threatened lawsuit? Select one.

The covenant is unenforceable against the client because it is not in the client's deed, and thus violates the Statute of Frauds.

The covenant is unenforceable against the client because the client lacked actual or record notice of the restriction.

The covenant is unenforceable against the client because there is no horizontal privity between the client and the neighbor.

The covenant is unenforceable because a restriction to single-story dwellings is an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Covenants

Practice Covenants in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Covenants, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

What is your client's best defense against the threatened lawsuit? Select one.

The covenant is unenforceable against the client because it is not in the client's deed, and thus violates the Statute of Frauds.
The covenant is unenforceable against the client because the client lacked actual or record notice of the restriction. (correct answer)
The covenant is unenforceable against the client because there is no horizontal privity between the client and the neighbor.
The covenant is unenforceable because a restriction to single-story dwellings is an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

Explanation: The neighbor is likely proceeding under a theory of an implied reciprocal negative servitude based on a common scheme. For the servitude to be enforceable against the client's lot, the client must have had notice of the restriction when they took the property. The facts state the client's deed did not contain the restriction (no record notice) and the client was not aware of it (no actual notice). While inquiry notice is possible if the subdivision had a uniform appearance, the facts do not establish this. Therefore, the strongest defense is the lack of notice. (A) is incorrect because the Statute of Frauds is satisfied by the writing in the prior deeds under a common scheme theory; the restriction does not need to be in every deed. (C) is incorrect because horizontal privity is not required to enforce an equitable servitude. (D) is incorrect because this type of building restriction is a common and permissible use restriction, not an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

Question 2

You are representing a homeowners' association (HOA). The HOA was formed by a developer who recorded a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to all lots in a subdivision. The CC&Rs require homeowners to pay an annual assessment for the maintenance of common areas. A homeowner, who is a successor in title to an original purchaser, has refused to pay the assessment for the past two years. The HOA has filed a lawsuit seeking to recover the unpaid assessments as money damages. The homeowner's defense is that the HOA lacks standing to sue because it was not a party to the original deed and therefore lacks privity of estate.

How should the court rule on the homeowner's defense? Select one.

For the homeowner, because the HOA does not share horizontal privity with the original developer or vertical privity with the homeowner.
For the homeowner, because a covenant to pay money is a personal obligation that does not run with the land.
For the HOA, because the covenant to pay assessments touches and concerns the land by benefiting all lot owners.
For the HOA, because it has standing to enforce the covenants as the designated representative of the property owners. (correct answer)

Explanation: The homeowner's defense focuses on standing and privity. Modernly, HOAs are recognized as having standing to enforce subdivision covenants, either as the assignee of the developer's rights or as the agent and representative of the collective homeowners, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the covenants. The argument that the HOA itself lacks privity of estate is not a winning defense. (A) is incorrect because courts do not apply traditional privity rules to bar enforcement by an HOA acting on behalf of the community. (B) is incorrect because covenants to pay money to an HOA for maintenance of common areas are universally held to touch and concern the land. (C) is a true statement about the covenant, but (D) directly addresses and refutes the homeowner's specific defense regarding the HOA's standing and privity.

Question 3

A deed for a lot in a lakeside community contained a covenant requiring the owner to be a member of the community yacht club and to pay annual dues. The current owner, a successor to the original grantee, is not a boater and refuses to pay the dues. The yacht club, which owns no land in the community but is the designated beneficiary in the covenant, sued the owner for the unpaid dues.

Which issue is most likely to be dispositive in determining whether the owner must pay the dues? Select one.

Whether a covenant requiring membership in a club touches and concerns the land. (correct answer)
Whether the yacht club has standing to enforce a covenant when it does not own any benefited land.
Whether the current owner had inquiry notice of the covenant.
Whether horizontal privity existed between the original grantor and grantee of the lot.

Explanation: The central legal question is whether this specific covenant is of a type that can run with the land. For a covenant to run (either at law or in equity), it must "touch and concern" the land. This means it must affect the legal rights of landowners in their capacity as landowners. A covenant to pay dues for the upkeep of common areas touches and concerns the land. However, a covenant to pay dues to a private social club, even if located nearby, is much more tenuous. Courts are split on this, but it is the most significant hurdle for the yacht club. If the court finds the covenant does not touch and concern the land, it is merely a personal promise of the original grantee and unenforceable against successors. (B) is a real issue (benefit in gross), but many modern courts allow it. (A) is more fundamental. (C) is unlikely to be an issue as the covenant was in the deed (record notice). (D) would be relevant for a suit for damages, but the touch and concern issue is primary for any enforcement against a successor.

Question 4

A parcel of land is burdened by a valid, recorded covenant restricting its use to agricultural purposes only. The city later rezones the area, including the parcel, to allow for light industrial use. A manufacturer purchases the parcel, intending to build a small factory that complies with the new zoning ordinance. A neighboring landowner, whose property benefits from the agricultural-use covenant, brings an action to enjoin the construction of the factory.

What is the likely result of the neighbor's action? Select one.

The injunction will be denied because the zoning ordinance supersedes the private restrictive covenant.
The injunction will be denied because the rezoning constitutes a changed condition that automatically terminates the covenant.
The injunction will be granted only if the neighbor can show that the factory would constitute a public nuisance.
The injunction will be granted because the private covenant is an independent restriction and is more restrictive than the zoning ordinance. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a question involving both private restrictive covenants and zoning ordinances, remember that these are two separate layers of land use control that operate independently. Private covenants are contractual agreements between property owners, while zoning is governmental regulation. The injunction will be granted because private restrictive covenants and zoning ordinances can coexist, and property owners must comply with whichever restriction is more stringent. Here, the agricultural-use covenant is more restrictive than the light industrial zoning, so the manufacturer cannot build the factory even though it would comply with zoning laws. The covenant remains valid and enforceable against the current owner, regardless of the rezoning. Option A incorrectly assumes that zoning supersedes private covenants. This is a common misconception—zoning laws establish minimum standards, but private covenants can impose additional, more restrictive requirements that remain enforceable. Option B misapplies the "changed conditions" doctrine. This doctrine only terminates covenants when neighborhood changes make the covenant's purpose impossible to achieve or meaningless. Rezoning alone doesn't automatically create changed conditions sufficient to terminate a covenant. Option C wrongly focuses on public nuisance law. The neighbor's right to enforce the covenant doesn't depend on proving the factory would be a public nuisance—the covenant violation itself provides grounds for an injunction. Remember this key principle: Property owners must satisfy both zoning requirements AND any applicable private restrictive covenants. When they conflict, the more restrictive standard controls. Always analyze these as separate, coexisting limitations rather than competing regulations.

Question 5

A residential subdivision created in 1965 is subject to a recorded restrictive covenant prohibiting any commercial use of the lots. The subdivision is bordered on the west by a quiet two-lane road. Over the past 20 years, the city has widened that road into a six-lane highway, and the entire opposite side of the highway is now occupied by shopping centers and restaurants. A homeowner whose lot directly abuts the busy highway wants to sell her property to a fast-food chain. She brings an action to have the covenant declared unenforceable as to her lot due to changed conditions.

What is the likely outcome of the homeowner's action? Select one.

Success, because the character of the surrounding area has so fundamentally changed that the covenant's purpose has been defeated.
Success, because enforcing the covenant would create an undue economic hardship on the homeowner.
Failure, because the changed conditions have occurred outside the subdivision, and the covenant may still benefit the interior lots. (correct answer)
Failure, because the homeowner is estopped from challenging a covenant that was in her chain of title when she purchased the property.

Explanation: The doctrine of changed conditions requires that the changes be so radical and pervasive as to defeat the essential purpose of the restriction for all properties within the restricted area. Courts are reluctant to apply the doctrine when the changes have occurred only on the borders of the development, as the covenant may still provide substantial benefit to the homeowners on the interior lots (e.g., by preventing commercial encroachment). The change must affect the entire subdivision. Therefore, the action is likely to fail. (A) is incorrect because the standard is very high, and change on the periphery is usually insufficient. (B) is incorrect because mere economic hardship or the land being more valuable for a prohibited use is not a defense to enforcement. (D) is incorrect because having notice of a covenant does not estop a party from later challenging its enforceability under a doctrine like changed conditions.

Question 6

In 1990, the owner of a large parcel of land subdivided it into two lots, Lot A and Lot B. The owner sold Lot A to a buyer, and the deed included a covenant stating that Lot A "shall be used exclusively for residential purposes." The deed specified that this covenant was for the benefit of Lot B, which the owner retained. Two years later, the owner sold Lot B to a second buyer. Thirty years later, a successor-in-interest to the original buyer of Lot A wants to operate a small law office on the property. The current owner of Lot B, who purchased it from the second buyer, has filed a suit for money damages based on the covenant.

To prevail in the suit for money damages, which of the following is it most critical for the owner of Lot B to establish? Select one.

The covenant was intended to, and does, touch and concern the land.
The current owner of Lot A had actual notice of the covenant.
There was horizontal privity between the original covenanting parties. (correct answer)
There is strict vertical privity between the owner of Lot A and the original grantee.

Explanation: To enforce the burden of a real covenant at law (for money damages), all elements must be met: writing, intent, touch and concern, notice, horizontal privity, and vertical privity. The facts establish writing, intent, touch and concern, and vertical privity on both the benefit and burden side. However, the critical element that distinguishes a real covenant from an equitable servitude is the requirement of horizontal privity—a specific relationship (here, grantor-grantee) between the original covenanting parties. The facts state the original owner sold Lot A to a buyer, creating grantor-grantee privity. The owner of Lot B must establish this fact. The other choices, while necessary elements, are either more easily established by the facts (A, D) or not the most critical distinguishing factor for a suit for damages versus an injunction (B, as constructive notice is sufficient).

Question 7

Two neighbors owned adjoining parcels of land. They executed and recorded a standalone agreement in which they both covenanted not to build any structure exceeding 20 feet in height on their respective properties. The agreement stated that it was intended to run with the land and bind all successors. One neighbor sold her parcel to a buyer, who had actual knowledge of the agreement. The buyer has now begun constructing a 30-foot-tall guesthouse. The other neighbor, who was an original party to the agreement, seeks an injunction to halt the construction.

Is the court likely to grant the injunction? Select one.

Yes, because all requirements for the burden of an equitable servitude to run to the buyer have been met. (correct answer)
Yes, because the agreement created a valid negative easement that runs with the land.
No, because there was no horizontal privity between the original neighbors when they made the agreement.
No, because a promise not to build is a personal covenant that does not touch and concern the land.

Explanation: The neighbor is seeking an injunction, which is an equitable remedy. This means the covenant must be enforceable as an equitable servitude. The requirements for the burden of an equitable servitude to run are: (1) a writing, (2) intent for the restriction to be enforceable by and against successors, (3) the restriction must touch and concern the land, and (4) the successor must have notice of the restriction. Here, the agreement was written and recorded, it expressly stated intent to run, a height restriction touches and concerns the land by affecting its use and enjoyment, and the buyer had actual notice. Therefore, the injunction should be granted. (C) is incorrect because horizontal privity is not required for an equitable servitude. (B) is incorrect because while the effect is similar to a negative easement for light or air, it was created as a covenant. (D) is incorrect because restrictions on the size and type of structures are classic examples of covenants that touch and concern the land.

Question 8

A landowner owned two adjacent lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2. She sold Lot 1 to a buyer and included in the deed a covenant that no structure on Lot 1 would be built within 20 feet of the boundary line with Lot 2, for the benefit of Lot 2. Years later, the landowner purchased Lot 1 back from the buyer. She then sold Lot 1 to a new owner with a deed that did not mention the setback covenant. Subsequently, she sold Lot 2 to a different owner. The new owner of Lot 1 now plans to build an addition that will encroach upon the 20-foot setback area. The owner of Lot 2 sues to enforce the original covenant.

Will the owner of Lot 2 be able to enforce the covenant? Select one.

Yes, because the covenant was properly recorded and runs with the land to all subsequent owners.
Yes, because the new owner of Lot 1 had constructive notice of the covenant from the land records.
No, because the covenant was extinguished by the doctrine of merger when the original landowner reacquired Lot 1. (correct answer)
No, because there is no longer horizontal privity between the current owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2.

Explanation: A covenant is terminated by merger if the ownership of the burdened and benefited estates comes into the hands of one person. Here, the original landowner, who owned the benefited Lot 2, reacquired the burdened Lot 1. At that moment, she owned both the benefit and the burden, and the covenant was extinguished. The covenant is not automatically revived when the properties are later severed. It would need to be newly created in the subsequent deed to be enforceable. (A) and (B) are incorrect because recording and notice do not prevent termination by merger. (D) is incorrect because lack of horizontal privity between subsequent owners is not the reason for termination; the issue is merger.

Question 9

A subdivision's recorded covenants include a provision stating, "No fence shall be erected on any lot without the prior written approval of the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)." The covenants provide no specific standards for fence approval. A homeowner submitted a plan for a standard six-foot wooden privacy fence. The ACC denied approval, stating in a letter that "we believe privacy fences are unfriendly and contrary to the open-concept vision for our community." The homeowner built the fence anyway. The ACC sued for an injunction to have the fence removed.

What is the homeowner's strongest argument that the ACC's decision is unenforceable? Select one.

The covenant is an invalid restraint on the free use of property.
The ACC's decision was unreasonable and made in bad faith because it was based on a standard not contained in the covenants. (correct answer)
The covenant is void because it fails to specify objective criteria for fence approval.
The homeowner was not in vertical privity with the original developer who created the ACC.

Explanation: While covenants giving discretionary approval power to an architectural committee are generally valid, the committee must exercise its power reasonably and in good faith, not arbitrarily. Here, the ACC invented a new "open-concept" standard not found in the recorded covenants. A court is likely to find this decision unreasonable and arbitrary, as it is not based on any standard of review provided to the homeowners. This is the homeowner's strongest argument. (A) is incorrect because restrictions on fences are common and generally valid. (C) is a weaker argument; courts often uphold covenants that lack specific standards, so long as the committee's subsequent decisions are reasonable. (D) is irrelevant to the enforcement of an equitable servitude by an HOA or its committee.

Question 10

To prevail in the suit for money damages, which of the following is it most critical for the owner of Lot B to establish? Select one.

The covenant was intended to, and does, touch and concern the land.
The current owner of Lot A had actual notice of the covenant.
There was horizontal privity between the original covenanting parties. (correct answer)
There is strict vertical privity between the owner of Lot A and the original grantee.

Question 11

A developer subdivided land into 20 lots, envisioning a common plan where each lot would be restricted to residential use. The developer sold the first 15 lots with deeds containing this restriction. He sold the 16th lot to a buyer with a deed that did not contain the restriction. This buyer had no actual knowledge of the restrictions in the other deeds. All 15 previously sold lots had houses on them, but the area was otherwise mixed-use. The buyer of the 16th lot plans to build a gas station. The owner of the 1st lot sues to enjoin the construction.

On which grounds is the buyer of the 16th lot most likely to prevail? Select one.

The developer's common plan was not sufficiently established by restricting only 15 of 20 lots.
The buyer did not have record or actual notice of the restriction, and there was insufficient evidence for inquiry notice. (correct answer)
The Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of a restriction that is not in the buyer's own deed.
There is no horizontal privity between the buyer and the developer.

Explanation: This case involves an implied reciprocal negative servitude. For the servitude to be enforced against the buyer of Lot 16, the buyer must have notice of the common scheme. The deed did not contain the restriction, so there is no record notice. The facts state there was no actual notice. The final question is inquiry notice. While the 15 lots had houses, the facts state the surrounding area was mixed-use. A court could find that the appearance of the subdivision was not so uniform as to put the buyer on inquiry notice that there was a residential-only restriction. This lack of notice is the buyer's strongest defense. (A) is a weaker argument; a scheme applied to 75% of the lots could be seen as a common plan. (C) is incorrect because the Statute of Frauds does not bar this doctrine; the writing in the other deeds is sufficient. (D) is irrelevant because horizontal privity is not needed for an equitable servitude.

Question 12

A city sold a parcel of land to a developer. The deed contained a covenant requiring the developer to construct a public park on a portion of the land. The developer subsequently sold the undeveloped land to a corporation. The corporation, aware of the covenant, now plans to build a private office building on the entire parcel. The city, which owns no adjacent land, sues for an injunction to compel the corporation to build the park.

Is the city likely to obtain the injunction? Select one.

No, because the city owns no land that is benefited by the covenant, so the benefit is in gross and unenforceable by a successor.
No, because the covenant to build a park is an affirmative covenant that is too burdensome to run against successors.
Yes, because the corporation had notice of the covenant, and the covenant touches and concerns the land by controlling its use. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the city can prove that the corporation is the alter ego of the developer, establishing privity.

Explanation: The city is seeking an injunction, so the rules for equitable servitudes apply. The burden runs to a successor if there was writing, intent, the covenant touches and concerns the land, and the successor has notice. All these elements are present. The corporation had notice, and a covenant dictating the use of land (for a park) clearly touches and concerns it. (A) is the most plausible distractor. While traditionally the benefit of a covenant could not be held in gross, modern courts and the Restatement (Third) of Property have moved to allow enforcement, especially by governments or charitable organizations. More importantly, the city is the original covenantee, so the issue of the benefit running is not present. The city is enforcing the original promise against a successor to the burdened party. (B) is incorrect; affirmative covenants can and do run with the land. (D) is incorrect because privity is not required for an equitable servitude, and piercing the corporate veil is not necessary when the corporation itself had notice of the restriction.

Question 13

On which grounds is the buyer of the 16th lot most likely to prevail? Select one.

The developer's common plan was not sufficiently established by restricting only 15 of 20 lots.
The buyer did not have record or actual notice of the restriction, and there was insufficient evidence for inquiry notice. (correct answer)
The Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of a restriction that is not in the buyer's own deed.
There is no horizontal privity between the buyer and the developer.

Question 14

Your client owns a parcel of land that is benefited by a recorded covenant on an adjacent parcel. The covenant prohibits the construction of any building taller than one story on the adjacent parcel. The owner of the burdened parcel has recently obtained a zoning variance from the city that permits him to build a three-story building. The owner claims that this variance has rendered the private covenant unenforceable. Your client wishes to file for an injunction to stop the construction.

What is the best advice to give your client regarding the effect of the zoning variance on the covenant? Select one.

The zoning variance, as an official government act, supersedes and terminates the private covenant.
The client should sue the city to have the variance overturned, as it improperly interferes with private contract rights.
The client can no longer get an injunction, but may be able to sue the neighbor for damages for breach of the covenant.
The zoning variance is irrelevant to the enforceability of the private covenant, which remains a separate and binding restriction. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about conflicts between zoning laws and private covenants, remember that these represent two separate legal frameworks that generally operate independently of each other. Private covenants are contractual obligations that run with the land, creating enforceable restrictions between property owners. Zoning laws are governmental regulations that establish minimum standards for land use. The key principle is that property owners can impose stricter private restrictions than what zoning requires, and obtaining government permission to do something doesn't automatically void private contractual obligations. The zoning variance here permits three-story construction, but it doesn't eliminate the neighbor's separate contractual duty under the recorded covenant to limit buildings to one story. Your client can still seek an injunction because the covenant remains fully enforceable as a private contract matter. Answer A is wrong because government acts don't automatically supersede private contracts - the variance simply removes one regulatory barrier but doesn't affect contractual obligations. Answer B misunderstands the relationship between zoning and private rights; cities can grant variances without improperly interfering with contracts, since these are separate legal domains. Answer C incorrectly assumes the variance affects remedies available for covenant enforcement - injunctive relief remains appropriate since the covenant is still valid and enforceable. Remember this fundamental distinction: zoning sets governmental minimums, while private covenants can impose additional restrictions. A zoning variance relaxes governmental requirements but doesn't release parties from their private contractual commitments to stricter standards.

Question 15

How should the court rule on the homeowner's defense? Select one.

For the homeowner, because the HOA does not share horizontal privity with the original developer or vertical privity with the homeowner.
For the homeowner, because a covenant to pay money is a personal obligation that does not run with the land.
For the HOA, because the covenant to pay assessments touches and concerns the land by benefiting all lot owners.
For the HOA, because it has standing to enforce the covenants as the designated representative of the property owners. (correct answer)

Question 16

A home in a subdivision is subject to a recorded covenant prohibiting the placement of sheds in side yards. The homeowner built a small tool shed in his side yard three years ago. His next-door neighbor, who was aware of the shed's construction, never objected. The two homeowners had a falling out over an unrelated matter. The neighbor has now filed a lawsuit seeking a mandatory injunction for the removal of the three-year-old shed.

What is the homeowner's most likely successful defense? Select one.

Laches, because the neighbor unreasonably delayed in bringing the lawsuit, causing prejudice to the homeowner. (correct answer)
Abandonment, because the neighbor's failure to object terminated the covenant as to both properties.
Merger, because the neighbor's acquiescence effectively merged the rights of the two properties.
Unclean hands, because the neighbor had also considered building a shed at one time.

Explanation: Laches is an equitable defense that applies when a plaintiff unreasonably delays in asserting a right, and this delay causes prejudice to the defendant. Here, the neighbor waited three years after becoming aware of the violation before suing. During this time, the homeowner relied on the neighbor's inaction. This delay is likely to be found unreasonable, and the prejudice is the cost and effort of now having to remove an established structure. (B) is incorrect because abandonment requires widespread violations, not just one instance of non-enforcement. (C) is incorrect as merger is a doctrine related to common ownership of benefited and burdened estates. (D) is incorrect because the neighbor merely considering a violation does not constitute unclean hands; the plaintiff must have actually engaged in related misconduct.

Question 17

In a written, recorded agreement, a landowner granted a right to a local hiking club to use a trail across her property. In the agreement, the landowner also covenanted on behalf of herself and her successors to maintain the trail in good condition. The hiking club owns no land. The landowner later sold her property to a buyer who had notice of the agreement. The trail has become overgrown and impassable. The hiking club has sued the new buyer for damages to cover the cost of clearing the trail.

The buyer's strongest defense against the suit for damages is that: Select one.

the hiking club owns no adjacent land, so the benefit of the covenant is in gross. (correct answer)
an affirmative covenant to maintain property is not enforceable against successors.
the buyer is not in horizontal privity with the hiking club.
the underlying right to use the trail was a license, not an easement.

Explanation: The hiking club is seeking money damages, which requires the covenant to run at law. For the burden of a real covenant to run, all elements (writing, intent, notice, touch & concern, horizontal and vertical privity) must be met. However, there is a significant issue with the benefit. Traditionally, for a real covenant, the benefit must be tied to a dominant estate and cannot be held in gross (by a party who owns no benefited land). Because the hiking club owns no land, the benefit is in gross. While modern trends may allow enforcement of such benefits in equity (as a servitude), courts are very reluctant to allow the benefit to run at law to permit a suit for money damages. This is the buyer's strongest defense. (B) is incorrect; affirmative covenants do run with the land. (C) is also true (no horizontal privity) and would defeat a damages claim, but the benefit-in-gross issue is also a powerful and often-tested defense. (A) is arguably a stronger conceptual defense in this context. (D) is incorrect; a written grant of a right-of-way for a trail is an easement, not a license.

Question 18

A developer sold a lot to a buyer, with a covenant in the deed that the buyer would build a brick wall between the lot and the developer's retained property within one year. The buyer never built the wall. Two years later, the buyer sold the lot to a new owner. The new owner's deed did not mention the covenant, but the prior deed was in the public record. The developer sued the new owner seeking an injunction to compel construction of the wall.

Is the court likely to grant the injunction? Select one.

Yes, because the new owner had constructive notice of the covenant and it touches and concerns the land.
No, because the covenant was breached by the original buyer, and the breach does not run with the land. (correct answer)
No, because affirmative covenants to build structures are generally not enforceable by injunction.
No, because the new owner's deed did not contain the covenant, it is barred by the Statute of Frauds.

Explanation: The covenant was a promise to perform a single act: build a wall within one year. The original buyer breached this covenant by failing to build the wall within the specified time. This was a one-time breach that was complete before the land was sold to the new owner. The liability for that breach remains with the original buyer. The covenant itself does not 'run' to the new owner as a continuing obligation to build the wall, as the time for performance has already passed and the breach is complete. (A) is incorrect because even with notice, the new owner is not liable for the predecessor's completed breach. (C) is generally incorrect; courts will enforce affirmative covenants by injunction in many cases. (D) is incorrect because the covenant is in writing in the prior recorded deed, satisfying the Statute of Frauds and providing constructive notice.

Question 19

Is the court likely to grant the injunction? Select one.

Yes, because all requirements for the burden of an equitable servitude to run to the buyer have been met. (correct answer)
Yes, because the agreement created a valid negative easement that runs with the land.
No, because there was no horizontal privity between the original neighbors when they made the agreement.
No, because a promise not to build is a personal covenant that does not touch and concern the land.

Question 20

What is the likely outcome of the homeowner's action? Select one.

Success, because the character of the surrounding area has so fundamentally changed that the covenant's purpose has been defeated.
Success, because enforcing the covenant would create an undue economic hardship on the homeowner.
Failure, because the changed conditions have occurred outside the subdivision, and the covenant may still benefit the interior lots. (correct answer)
Failure, because the homeowner is estopped from challenging a covenant that was in her chain of title when she purchased the property.