Possessory Estates
Livery of seisen – have to give the physical dirt as a symbol of the property
Statute Quia Emptores – allowed people to pass the land to their heirs, didn’t just automatically revert to the overlord (need to state “and his heirs” to create a fee simple)
Fee tail – does to lineal descendants – even adverse possession only counts for the life estate
Heirs – intestacy statute – 1) spouse, 2) child, 3) parents, 4) siblings, 5) decedents of siblings, 6) escheats to the state
Issue – descendants
Holographic will – a will that is hand written
Formal will – typed will
Defeasible estates
Fee Simple Determinable (Subject to a Reverter)
Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent (Subject to a Right of Entry)
Executory Interest – it divests a previous owner (unlike a remainder)
Can be shifting or springing but the actor has to do something to get the estate
White v. Brown p. 221
Need to look at the intent of the writer – did he intend it to be a fee simple?
Saying not to be sold is inconsistent with that?
Court finds it is a fee simple absolute – constraint on fee simple is invalid
Dissent says that the clear intent is to limit her use of it, basically a life estate
Valuation of remainder = market value of the property – value of the life estate
Baker v. Weedon p. 230
Property goes to his wife Anna or her children, if any.
Property can be sold by life tenant if remaindermen agree
The life tenant cannot destroy the property, destroys the remainders value
Obligation to engage in ordinary maintenance (must also pay the taxes)
Can continue to mine if the mine was already operating
Court decides she should keep the land as it is a better investment, growing more quickly
Mahrenholz v. County Board p. 242
Property is given to school on the condition that it be used for school.
Is it fee simple determinable (subject to reverter) or fee simple subject to a condition subsequent (subject to a right of entry)?
Neither a right of entry, not a reverter is divisible but they can be inherited.
Court rules that it is a reverter.
Mountain Brow Lodge v. Tuscano p. 251
Toscanos give land for the lodge and only for that purpose
Lodge wants to sell the land and claims that restriction on alienation is void
Solution is to make it defeasible – creates a condition subsequent
Ink v. City of Canton p. 257
The land goes to the city on the condition that it be used for a park - state wants to buy it for interstate
City would have used it for a park but for the actions of the state – it does not revert
As long as there is no certainty of a reverter then there is no value
Court tries to separate the value for a park from the value for any use to compensate Ink
City of Palm Springs v. Living Desert Reserve p. 265
City condemns the land so it can get around the reverter and keep the land for nothing
Court rules that the amount given is all they would pay as they wouldn’t break the condition otherwise
Comments(0)