In the creation of an equitable servitude, which statement about notice is correct?

Study for the MBE Critical Pass Test. Enhance your knowledge with flashcards and multiple choice questions. Prepare thoroughly for your exam with detailed hints and explanations.

In equitable servitudes, a restriction on land can bind successors, but the enforceability hinges on notice for the burden and on intent/touch-and-concern for the benefit. The important nuance is that notice matters for who must obey the restriction (the burden) but not for who gets the benefit.

If a successor takes title with notice of the covenant, the burden of the restriction runs with the land, so they must comply. This protects buyers from being bound by restrictions they didn’t know about. However, the benefit of the covenant runs to the land itself and to successors even if they don’t have actual or record notice, as long as the covenant was intended to run with the land and touches and concerns the property. So, the burden requires notice to bind successors, while the benefit does not. This matches the statement that notice is required for the burden to run to successors, but not required for the benefit to run.