Rajeev Majumdar


Part II of this Comment will begin by examining the history of racially restrictive covenants, specifically the nature of covenants and the role of the federal government in both spreading and hindering the usage of such covenants. Part III will discuss the legal underpinnings of what makes such covenants unenforceable in Washington, and the best processes an attorney can use to remove them. Part IV will discuss a recent case that has significantly altered the collateral consequences of attempting to destroy racially restrictive covenants upon other associated covenants. As a result, those seeking to retain the benefits of other covenants associated with the land should no longer fear that an entire set of beneficial covenants will be invalidated due to a specific challenge against a racially restrictive provision. Although the Washington Supreme Court has made this abundantly clear in the case of textually separate covenants, it has left open the question of multiple restrictions that are not textually distinct. Part V provides an analysis of Washington courts' logic and prevailing policy, and that of other jurisdictions that have tackled this issue, and Part V also argues that Washington courts would likely allow the racially restrictive portions of covenants to be excised from a document without endangering affiliated covenants, regardless of how the covenants are structured.