I think this "sounds" like they are creating a tempest for "shocked shocked I say" outrage. Those covenants are totally unenforceable and I am surprised it was even on the deed. The owner must have lived there for over 40 years.
These are as unenforceable as covenents against jewish or catholic buyers. The fact that they got some lawyer sounds like it was a PR effort by the lawyer.
(s)now if had been a covenant restriction against while males that would have been enforceable and al sharpton would have been marching inthe street. (/s)
I wonder if entrapment might be a defense for the man.
It appear this couple knew about the covenant and knew about this man. They intentionally set him up.
They are using his ignorance to take his house for free.
Seriously, who sees the deed when LOOKING for a house?
If he really did a fair housing violation that is fine and can be adressed. The sad fact is these "buyers" are going to be given a free pass for the same reason they are claiming outrage. skin color.
Actually, the property's chain of title requires all covenants to remain on the deed regardless of their legality. What surprises me is that there hasn't been another covenant added that explicitly makes it clear the privious one is null and void.
Without knowing the specifics of the property in question's development, its hard to determine if the entity responsible for adding the 'whites only' covennant is still in existance. Usually it's the developer or home owners association that tacked on the covenant.