hey, mavens!

A quick property question, for those up to the occasion:

My notes, my outline, and a handout from Professor Property all conclude that, for the benefit of a covenant to run with the land at law, one must show ownership of the land, intent of the grantor, and vertical privity of estate. My Gilberts supplement, meanwhile, insists that the three tickoff items are grantor's intent, "some form of privity of estate" and the touch-and-concern requirement as well.

Which is correct?

thus spake /jca @ May 2, 2003 03:59 PM