## Facts

- Two neighboring residential parcels in East Islip, Long Island lay on opposite sides of a canal; Witter owned the north parcel and the Taggarts owned the south parcel.
- Both parcels traced to a common grantor who severed the tract in 1951 by conveying the north parcel with a covenant restricting dock construction to protect the grantee’s view.
- The covenant appeared in Witter’s chain of title as a benefit to his parcel.
- The covenant did not appear in the deed to the south parcel or in any subsequent deed in the Taggarts’ direct chain of title.
- After purchasing, the Taggarts conducted a title search showing no recorded restriction in their direct chain and indicating their deed permitted a dock.
- The Taggarts built a dock (about 70 feet) along their canal frontage.
- Witter sued seeking removal of the dock and a permanent injunction, characterizing his interest as a scenic easement protecting an unobstructed view of the creek and nearby preserve.

## Issues

1. Whether a restrictive covenant recited only in the benefited parcel’s chain of title, and absent from the burdened parcel’s direct chain of title, is enforceable against a subsequent purchaser of the burdened parcel without actual notice or exceptional circumstances.
2. Whether such a covenant provides constructive notice sufficient to bind the subsequent purchaser under New York recording principles.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed.
- The covenant did not burden the Taggarts’ property because it was outside their direct chain of title and did not provide constructive notice.
- Summary judgment for the Taggarts was upheld, and Witter’s complaint was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Absent actual notice or exceptional circumstances, a purchaser is bound only by restrictions appearing in the purchaser’s direct chain of title.
- A restriction recorded solely in the benefited parcel’s chain of title is outside the burdened parcel’s chain and does not, by itself, impart constructive notice to later purchasers of the burdened parcel.
- Even if a covenant could operate as a scenic easement benefiting neighboring land, it is not enforceable against later purchasers of the allegedly burdened land without record notice in that land’s chain (or other legally sufficient notice).

## Conclusion

The court held that a view-protecting covenant appearing only in the benefited owner’s chain of title could not be enforced to require removal of a neighbor’s dock where the covenant was not in the neighbor’s direct chain of title and the neighbor lacked notice.


Witter v. Taggart, 78 N.Y.2d 234 (N.Y. 1991)