Replies

So you think it is right that some old man get sued for more than the asking price for his house for telling a prospective buyer that someone else wrote this covenant into the deed? There is a very real possibility that he does not know the covenant is void.

Suppose it were some old black man getting sued by whites for more than the asking price for his house because there were a covenant someone put in the deed that it could only be sold to black people?

Would that be fair?

If the covenant is indeed active, he has little or no control over that. Some covenants exist to ensure that family members get first shot at purchasing land which has been in the family for generations. There are many different variations on that theme, and most have no racial undertones (or overtones).

Is it fair to tell anyone they have to sell their property to anyone who can come up with the cash? Or can they decide who they want to sell it to--for whatever reason?

Now, before you flame me, believe it or not this is not a racial issue, at least in my mind, despite what the covenant said. Try to get past that.

Unless this man put that covenant in the deed HE is not the one who should be butchered in court and deprived of his property for that. He worked to pay for his house like most everyone else. There is a good chance it is all he owns of any real value. Should he lose that for something someone else did?

Advising a prospective buyer of a potential legal problem, even this one, is hardly a sign of malice.

Covenants can survive in deeds for hundreds of years, and he should not be penalized for having bought the property back when.

That is sure what this seems like to me, and that is just not fair.

Unless this man put that covenant in the deed HE is not the one who should be butchered in court and deprived of his property for that. He worked to pay for his house like most everyone else... Should he lose that for something someone else did?

I agree that he should not lose his house over this. But not for the reasons you give here. A covenant is nothing more than a simple additional contract to a contract and people should be responsible for that which they enter into and own. In this case the covenant.

If you buy a home with a 400 foot fenced back yard and then a year later lose 300 feet to a new neighbor whose property rightfully extended into your apparent back yard, that is the cost you pay for not determining the exact boundaries prior to purchase. If your new neighbor fails to get the 300 feet of your back yard which he rightfully purchased with his hard earned money because he did not know about the Adverse Possession laws of the state, that is the price he pays for not knowing the law.

As for this guy Rufus, either not knowing the particulars of the covenant he entered into, or not knowing the legal implications that could arise over a civil rights complaint of this type, is not an excuse for limiting his responsibility. I am surprised to hear that kind of argument on FreeRepublic.