Neponsit Property Owners’ Association v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

15 N.E.2d 793 (1938)

Quick Summary

Neponsit Property Owners’ Association (plaintiff), representing homeowners in a residential community, and Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank (defendant), which owned property within this community. The dispute centered on whether Emigrant was bound by a covenant in their deed requiring payments for area maintenance.

The Court of Appeals of New York had to determine if such a covenant was enforceable against subsequent property owners. The Court concluded affirmatively, citing that the intent, connection to land use, and benefit to property owners justified enforcing the covenant.

Facts of the Case

The Neponsit Property Owners’ Association (POA) (plaintiff) was an organization formed by property owners in a residential community developed by Neponsit Realty Company (Neponsit). Neponsit had subdivided a plot of land and sold lots with a covenant in the deeds requiring the payment of annual fees for maintenance of common areas like roads and parks.

This covenant also included a provision allowing Neponsit or its successors to foreclose on a lien if payments were not made. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank (Emigrant) (defendant) acquired a property within this development through a judicial sale. The deed to Emigrant included this covenant.

When Emigrant failed to pay the required fee, the POA initiated legal action to enforce the covenant and foreclose the lien. Emigrant contested, arguing that the covenant did not legally bind them as successors in title.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank purchased property subject to a covenant and failed to pay the required fee.
  2. The Neponsit Property Owners’ Association initiated legal action to foreclose on the lien for unpaid fees.
  3. Emigrant moved to dismiss the complaint, which was denied.
  4. The POA’s motion to strike Emigrant’s affirmative defenses was granted.
  5. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Special Term and allowed Emigrant to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether a covenant requiring payment for maintenance of common areas in a residential development runs with the land and is enforceable by a property owners’ association against subsequent owners.

Rule of Law

A real covenant will run with the land and be enforceable against subsequent purchasers if it was intended by the original parties to do so, touches or concerns the land, and there is privity of estate between the party claiming benefit and the party burdened by the covenant.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that Neponsit Realty Company clearly intended for the covenant to run with the land and be enforceable by an owners’ association. The Court reasoned that although the covenant required payment of money rather than restricting land use, it substantially affected the rights associated with land ownership because it was connected to the maintenance of common areas which benefited all property owners in the development.

Furthermore, while traditional privity of estate might not exist between Emigrant and the POA, the Court recognized that the association was acting on behalf of all property owners in fulfilling its purpose. The Court concluded that in substance, if not in form, there was privity of estate sufficient to enforce the covenant.


The Court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, holding that the covenant did run with the land and was enforceable by the POA against Emigrant.

Key Takeaways

  1. A covenant can run with the land even if it requires payment of money rather than limiting use of property, provided it substantially affects land ownership rights.
  2. Privity of estate can be established in substance if an association represents property owners who benefit from a covenant.
  3. The intent of original parties and the actual benefit derived from a covenant are crucial in determining its enforceability against subsequent owners.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What criteria must be met for a covenant to run with the land?

A covenant runs with the land if it is intended to do so by the original parties, touches or concerns the land, and has privity of estate. The covenant must affect land rights significantly.

  • For example: A covenant in a housing development requiring all homeowners to contribute to a communal garden’s maintenance touches and concerns the land since it relates to the property’s appearance and value.

How is 'privity of estate' established between parties for enforcement of real covenants?

Privity of estate exists when there is a direct connection between successive owners concerning rights and obligations on land. This can be established even without traditional conveyance if a representative association acts on owners’ behalf.

  • For example: If homeowners delegate enforcement of property maintenance rules to a homeowners’ association, this body can enforce covenants against members as there is privity in substance.

Can a monetary obligation in a real covenant be enforceable in the same manner as a use restriction?

Monetary obligations in a real covenant can be enforceable if they importantly affect the land such as funding for its upkeep or improvement which benefits all owners.

  • For example: A real covenant that requires homeowners to pay dues for shared services like snow removal or security patrols is enforceable because it provides tangible benefits to the property value and community welfare.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Property Law