Also known as: privity-of-estate · estate privity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A legal relationship between parties who hold successive or simultaneous interests in the same estate in land. This relationship permits covenants that touch and concern the land to bind successors when the transfer creates or preserves the connection between the enforcing party and the party subject to the burden.
Perry Pratt leased commercial space from Phoebe Park and promised in the lease to maintain specialized ventilation systems. Perry assigned the entire leasehold to Pierre Poulin. Phoebe never released Perry from the promise. Because the assignment did not terminate Perry's privity of estate with Phoebe, Perry remains obligated to perform the maintenance covenant.
Priya Prasad leased laboratory space from Pacific Bank under a lease requiring maintenance of containment systems. Priya assigned the lease to Phuong Pham. The assignment placed Phuong in privity of estate with Pacific Bank. Because the maintenance promise touches and concerns the leasehold and was intended to run, Phuong must perform the covenant while in possession.
Pulse Media leased office space from Precision Tools under a lease in which Precision Tools promised to maintain rooftop terraces. Precision Tools sold the building to Prime Logistics subject to the lease. The sale brought Prime Logistics into privity of estate with Pulse Media. The terrace promise therefore binds Prime Logistics as the new owner.
Patricia Patel adversely possessed a strip of land for seven years and then conveyed her possessory interest by deed to Patricia's neighbor. The neighbor continued possession for the remaining statutory period. Because the deed created privity of estate between the successive possessors, the periods may be tacked to establish title by adverse possession.
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County. As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood. Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated. Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants. The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements. The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys. The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos. In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood. Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors. Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year. The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy. Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.
Privity of estate arises from shared interests in the leased property and ends when the tenant assigns the entire estate. Privity of contract arises from the original lease agreement and survives assignment unless the landlord releases the original tenant. An assignee in privity of estate becomes liable for covenants that touch and concern the land, while the original tenant remains liable on the contract.
…premises in question within ten years before the commencement of the action.” : The English common law does not require privity as a prerequisite for tacking. See F. Clark, Law of Surveying and Boundaries, § 561 (3d ed. 1959) at 568. : Defendants’ deed and chain of title had an alternate description…
…This is true even though the assignment or sublease is made with the consent of the lessor. By an assignment of a lease the privity of estate between the lessor and lessee is terminated, but the privity
…concluded that this provision was not a sufficient expression of the parties’ intent to bind the successors of the conveyed estate. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals misplaced its reliance on North Carolina case law establishing that a recital that a covenant is to run with the land cannot convert into a real…
…appear that the covenant is one “ touching ” or “ concerning ” the land with which it runs; (3) it must appear that there is “ privity of estate
An assignee enters privity of estate with the landlord upon receiving the tenant's entire remaining leasehold interest. This connection allows lease covenants that touch and concern the land and were intended to run to bind the assignee. A sublessee does not enter privity of estate with the landlord because the sublessee receives less than the full estate.
Yes. When a landlord transfers the reversion, the transferee comes into privity of estate with the tenant. Express landlord covenants that touch and concern the leased premises and were intended to run therefore bind the new owner. The original landlord remains liable on privity of contract unless released.
Yes. Successive adverse possessors may tack their periods only when they are in privity of estate, typically supplied by a deed or other transfer of possession. Without that connection, the periods cannot be combined to meet the statutory requirement.