This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Title is not based on covenants and restrictions. Those are in fact encumbrances to title and exceptions in title policies. There is case law on point, In Florida. Cunningham v. Haley and Matissek is particularly on point that amended covenants are not muniments of title that extend MRTA. This is black letter law. The previous statement was simply wrong.
If anyone knows of a case that says otherwise, please state it. Otherwise, changing it back just makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
