{"id":1661,"date":"2021-09-03T11:00:46","date_gmt":"2021-09-03T15:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deeds.com\/articles\/?p=1661"},"modified":"2024-04-25T23:19:27","modified_gmt":"2024-04-26T03:19:27","slug":"transforming-real-estate-law-nationwide-a-quest-for-racial-fairness-gains-ground","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deeds.com\/articles\/transforming-real-estate-law-nationwide-a-quest-for-racial-fairness-gains-ground\/","title":{"rendered":"Transforming Real Estate Law: Nationwide, a Quest for Racial Fairness Gains Ground"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Racial fairness is undergoing significant progress in real estate law this year \u2014 particularly in the area of confronting offensive deed restrictions. In some notable updates for 2021-2022, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and Texas are confronting tackling race-based covenants in deeds. Parallel provisions are already available in a handful of states, including Florida, Maryland, Utah<\/a>, and Washington<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, in what might be a nationwide first, the state of\nOregon is prohibiting the practice of writing \u201clove letters\u201d to sellers in\norder to win in the home-buying arena.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Confronting the\nRemnants of Segregation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As we\u2019ve previously noted, the language of racial\nexclusion on real estate deeds<\/a> is an all-too-common problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, not all deed\nrestrictions<\/a> are illegitimate. Various types of restrictions legally limit\nthe kind, size or number of things that may be built on a property. They set\nforth permissible lot sizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They notify buyers of easements, acceptable and unacceptable\nland use, and so forth. But not all deed restrictions focus on limiting things\nor activities. Some have disadvantaged certain groups of people to the advantage\nof others. For a long time, the courts and the real estate industry went along\nwith this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The buck stopped on May 3, 1948, when the U.S. Supreme Court held racially restrictive covenants unenforceable<\/a> under the 14th Amendment. Two decades later, the Fair Housing Act outlawed racial discrimination in housing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While language forbidding certain groups to move into homes\nand subdivisions is known to be unenforceable, it wasn\u2019t deleted from the\ndeeds. The doctrine of \u201ccovenants running with the land\u201d seemed to mean these\nclauses were etched in the chain of title forever. The question many people are\nasking today is this: If federal and state law rejects and renders these\nclauses unenforceable, why must they be allowed to linger uncorrected in the\nproperty records? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connecticut\nVoids Race Identifiers in Legal Documents  <\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Legal advocacy to denounce \u201cwhites-only\u201d and similar\nlanguage is surging this year and one of the places it\u2019s happening is\nConnecticut.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

David Ware, a lawyer raised in Manchester, Connecticut,\nfound out that a clause supporting racial segregation existed in his family\nhome deed, and in the deeds of several nearby subdivisions created in the\n1940s. Ware further learned that Connecticut lacked any method to remove or\ndenounce the language. Ware set out to work on a possible law that would\ndeclare these clauses void by Connecticut. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fast-forward to Jul. 1, 2021. An Act Concerning the Removal\nof Restrictions on Ownership or Occupancy of Real Property Based on Race and\nElimination of the Race Designation on Marriage Licenses <\/em>became law in\nConnecticut. Under the new law, also known as HB 6665, homeowners who find\nrace-based restrictions in their deed may have an affidavit recorded in their\nhome\u2019s county, addressing and renouncing the clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As enacted<\/a>, the law impacts deed recording in the following ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n