Also, Anderson cured breach after Atkins filed suit, which would’ve been too late at (Anderson still lost common law would’ve property)… BUT, at Anderson likely kept property if modern law, … would’ve cure was in good faith… AND, if then D may cure breach within notice grace clause, … of so long as “reasonable amount time… acting expeditiously” thus, when Shepherd granted land to Atkins, Atkins … should’ve demanded that Shepherd grant as well Atkins had ONLY the PT but NOT the (needed both) remedial device “substantial interest”, If purpose is (i.e. height-limit on residence on Lot 1 to land-related protect view of Lot 2), then grantee has substantial interest Often not practical for grantor (i.e. land developer) to hold then enforce on (time, remedial device, grantee’s behalf expenses, liability involved)… AND, if multiple grantees (i.e. lot owners), then grantor could … transfer in to all grantees (as undivided interest remedial device OR form (for all grantees to join) to co-tenants), organization hold remedial device If purpose is (NOT i.e. personal land-related, purposes “research then grantor has substantial interest only”), If purpose is b/w AND (benefitting hybrid land-related personal both grantor AND grantee), then MAY be enforceable by both If O donates land to city for purpose of maintaining free public library dedicated to O (w/ O holding if restriction PT violated)… AND, city wants to build shopping center around … library… b/c city is committing illegal expenditure/waste/injury to … public entity, residential taxpayers have standing to bring (since violating restriction could result in taxpayer lawsuit O’s loss of property) NO even if has technically occurred (i.e. must get self-help forfeiture PR), court order to recover possessment (action for ejectment) If holder of has paid for is of fee simple defeasible improvements, forfeiture land AND holder gets NO reimbursement, w/ 2 improvements exceptions… Improvement is (removable by holder) fixture (govt. entity condemns land, BUT compensates for $$ put Eminent domain into land)
Also, Anderson cured breach after Atkins filed suit, which would’ve been too late at common law (Anderson still would’ve lost property)… … BUT, at modern law, Anderson likely would’ve kept property if cure was in good faith… … AND, if notice grace clause, then D may cure breach within “reasonable amount of time… so long as acting expeditiously” … thus, when Shepherd granted land to Atkins, Atkins should’ve demanded that Shepherd grant PT as well Atkins had ONLY the “substantial interest”, but NOT the remedial device (needed both) If purpose is land-related (i.e. height-limit on residence on Lot 1 to protect view of Lot 2), then grantee has substantial interest Often not practical for grantor (i.e. land developer) to hold remedial device, then enforce on grantee’s behalf (time, expenses, liability involved)… … AND, if multiple grantees (i.e. lot owners), then grantor could transfer undivided interest in remedial device to all grantees (as co-tenants), OR form organization (for all grantees to join) to hold remedial device If purpose is personal (NOT land-related, i.e. “research purposes only”), then grantor has substantial interest If purpose is hybrid b/w land-related AND personal (benefitting both grantor AND grantee), then MAY be enforceable by both If O donates land to city for purpose of maintaining free public library dedicated to O (w/ O holding PT if restriction violated)… … AND, city wants to build shopping center around library… … b/c city is committing illegal expenditure/waste/injury to public entity, residential taxpayers have standing to bring taxpayer lawsuit (since violating O’s restriction could result in loss of property) NO self-help even if forfeiture has technically occurred (i.e. PR), must get court order to recover possessment (action for ejectment) If holder of fee simple defeasible has paid for improvements, forfeiture is of land AND improvements holder gets NO reimbursement, w/ 2 exceptions… Improvement is fixture (removable by holder) Eminent domain (govt. entity condemns land, BUT compensates for $$ put into land)