Restrictive Covenant! is it still valid if the person(s) named have died??

[IWJ8882]

Hello all and thank you for allowing me to join this forum.

My wife and I are looking to buy a piece of land with a very derelict house on it. We wish to potentially build a house for us and one for my Father who now finds himself on his own since Mum died recently.

There is a charge which we think is no longer relevant as both parties being the named Vendor and named original Purchaser have died.

Please can you help to confirm this is the case for us.

Thank you in advance.............

HERE IS THE INFORMATION We HAVE FOR YOU.........

The title shows a restriction under the Charges Register as follows:

(13.01.2003) A conveyance of the land in this title dated 4th June 1964 made between (1) Malcolm Chester (Vendor) and (2) Martin Brewster (Purchaser) contains restrictive covenants.

The conveyance reads as follows:

This conveyance is made the fourth day of June one thousand nine hundred and sixty-four between Malcolm Chester of Peacock House, Rye in the county of Sussex (hereinafter called "the vendor") of the one part and Martin Brewster of Moonriver Cottage Rye aforesaid (hereinafter called "the purchaser") of the other part W H E R E A S:

etc etc.....................until we reach the...........THE SCHEDULE ABOVE referred to PART 2

1. Only one dwellinghouse with or without garage shall at any time be erected on the land and shall be used for the purpose of a private dwellinghouse only............................
2. No new building shall be erected on the land unless the plans and specifications thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Vendor or his Surveyor and such surveyor's fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser.

[dslippy]

A restrictive covenant 'attaches to the land' and therefore does indeed survive both the death of the covenantee and the transfer of the land.

Identifying the current beneficiaries can often be a problem.

There is a process to clear such covenants if (IF) they no longer serve a proper purpose.

[IWJ8882]

A restrictive covenant 'attaches to the land' and therefore does indeed survive both the death of the covenantee and the transfer of the land.

Identifying the current beneficiaries can often be a problem.

There is a process to clear such covenants if (IF) they no longer serve a proper purpose.

Thanks for quick reply.............my Brother has just sent something to me since posting this question that he had read online concerning the interpretation of restrictive covenants which require the consent of third parties before development or other specified works are undertaken. .....

it said...........

The High Court recently considered the meaning of “Vendor” and whether that term extended to successors in the case of Churchill v Templar and Others. In the absence of any express provision in the contract extending the definition of the term to successors, the restrictive covenant was interpreted literally (and restrictively) so as to require approval to development by only the original sellers. The parties in question had since died and the covenant was therefore deemed to have been discharged.

What are your thoughts on this. The Vendor is dead as is the original purchaser. Also there is no surveyor.

Thanks again for your interest in our dilemma.

[dslippy]

You have the paperwork to see how the parties are defined. The entire document needs to be read.

Also the case you refer to may be as you say it is but it appears to have disappeared without being relied upon. Do you have a citation? What you provide is behind a paywall.

Also the covenant is in two parts. The provision as to consent applies only to the second part.

[dslippy]

Actually the case is Churchill v Temple
available at
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d03e7f57eb1adb
You need also to consider whether this is an estate development (possibly unlikely here but needs confirming)

At best, the existing building might be demolished and a replacement built.
You apply under the Law of Property Act 1925 for the discharge of the covenant

[IWJ8882]

Actually the case is Churchill v Temple
available at
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d03e7f57eb1adb
You need also to consider whether this is an estate development (possibly unlikely here but needs confirming)

At best, the existing building might be demolished and a replacement built.
You apply under the Law of Property Act 1925 for the discharge of the covenant

Thanks you again for your replies....I will take your advice forward and will look to discharge the covenant.

All the best

Ian