Witter v. Taggart, 78 N.Y.2d 223 (1991)

A property owner is only bound by a restrictive covenant if it appears in a deed of record in the conveyance to that owner or their direct predecessors in title, absent actual notice or other exceptional circumstances.

Summary

This case addresses whether a restrictive covenant in a deed to a “dominant” parcel, which does not appear in the direct chain of title to an adjacent “servient” parcel, burdens the servient property. The New York Court of Appeals held that, absent actual notice or other exceptional circumstances, a property owner is only bound by restrictions appearing in their direct chain of title. This decision reinforces the importance of clear, accessible property records and protects bona fide purchasers from hidden encumbrances, promoting certainty in land ownership and use.

Facts

Witter and Taggart owned neighboring properties separated by a canal. Witter’s property was conveyed from a common grantor (Lawrance) in 1951 with a restrictive covenant preventing the erection of structures on Lawrance’s retained land that would obstruct Witter’s view. Taggart’s property was later conveyed by Lawrance’s heirs in 1962, with no mention of the restrictive covenant. The Taggarts built a 70-foot dock on their property. Witter sued to compel the removal of the dock, claiming it violated his scenic easement protected by the restrictive covenant in his chain of title.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the Taggarts, dismissing Witter’s complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the restrictive covenant in Witter’s chain of title was outside the Taggarts’ chain of title and did not constitute binding notice. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a restrictive covenant recited in the chain of title to Witter’s land, which appears nowhere in the direct chain of title to the Taggarts’ land, burdens the Taggarts’ property?

Holding

No, because a purchaser is only bound by restrictions if they appear in some deed of record in the conveyance to that owner or that owner’s direct predecessors in title, absent actual notice before or at the time of purchase or other exceptional circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on the principle established in Buffalo Academy of Sacred Heart v. Boehm Bros., that a landowner is only bound by restrictions appearing in their direct chain of title, absent actual notice or exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized that New York’s recording act aims to protect innocent purchasers and provide a public record of conveyances and encumbrances. The recording statutes only charge a purchaser with notice of matters in the record of the purchased land’s chain of title back to the original grantor.

The Court reasoned that imposing a duty to search outside the direct chain of title would undermine the purpose of the recording acts and place an unreasonable burden on prospective purchasers. It stated that “[i]n the absence of actual notice before or at the time of * * * purchase or of other exceptional circumstances, an owner of land is only bound by restrictions if they appear in some deed of record in the conveyance to [that owner] or [that owner’s] direct predecessors in title.”

The Court distinguished Ammirati v. Wire Forms, explaining that it involved a landlocked parcel with an affirmative easement by necessity, putting the servient owner on inquiry notice. The Court clarified that its affirmance in Ammirati did not mean that a deed conveying a dominant parcel is considered part of the chain of title of the retained servient land.

The court further stated that the grantor may extinguish a covenant when the grantor conveys retained servient land to a bona fide purchaser who takes title without actual or constructive notice of the covenant because the grantor and dominant owner failed to record the covenant in the servient land’s chain of title.

In its holding, the Court emphasized the importance of definiteness, certainty, alienability, and unencumbered use of property, which would be undermined by restricting the Taggarts due to Lawrance’s failure to include the covenant in the deed to his retained servient land.