BUT, is void under AND original language is EI RAP, automatic… … SO, becomes AND (formerly in RR) becomes FSSEI FSD, EI PR (now in W)… thus, W, as holder of AND becomes holder of as to FSD PR, FSA … reserved portion (as per merger) and, even if original language were then W would still end up optional, … w/ FSA If RR had been given instead (which is NOT an then NO easement estate), issues RAP In LAT transfers to Hospital, w/ in Noble, FSSEI EI residuary estate LAT’s void under RAP LAT and are separate entities former is residuary estate transferor, LAT’s latter is (thus, NOT a transferee PR/PT) ends up consisting of 3 AND, Hospital residuary estate LAT’s charities… is also a charity… BUT, under is void from the RAP, EI … very beginning… thus, if LAT had named the 3 charities at the time of conveyance, … then exemption applied (and would charity-to-charity EI would’ve NOT have been void) In F transfers to Lodge w/ in then, F dies, naming Fletcher, FPI F’s heirs… F’s wife in thus, heirs AND wife in litigation 2 different will… F’s F’s interpretations, BUT wife wins either way F’s If was (PR/PT), then F devised said to FPI retained by transferor FPI F’s wife in will (“F’s as words of limitation) heirs” If was (EI), then is void under in which FPI created in transferee EI RAP… case, (created as per original language being was devised to PR automatic) wife in will F’s Ethical considerations… Narrow of description as precise as possible (the broader the scope restriction scope, the more likely to viewed unfavorably in court) Narrow of usually, NO reason to be perpetual duration restriction Understanding of get over w/ before transaction is set remedial device “fight” in stone provides a anyone can do own title Title insurance guaranteed title search BUT, no one wants to search… Sometimes, violation of does NOT show up in record (i.e. notice of restriction violation NOT recorded, SoL has NOT run)…
… BUT, EI is void under RAP, AND original language is automatic… SO, FSSEI becomes FSD, AND EI (formerly in RR) becomes PR (now in W)… … thus, W, as holder of FSD AND PR, becomes holder of FSA as to reserved portion (as per merger) … and, even if original language were optional, then W would still end up w/ FSA If RR had been given easement instead (which is NOT an estate), then NO RAP issues In Noble, LAT transfers FSSEI to Hospital, w/ EI in LAT’s residuary estate void under RAP LAT and LAT’s residuary estate are separate entities former is transferor, latter is transferee (thus, NOT a PR/PT) LAT’s residuary estate ends up consisting of 3 charities… AND, Hospital is also a charity… … BUT, under RAP, EI is void from the very beginning… … thus, if LAT had named the 3 charities at the time of conveyance, then charity-to-charity exemption would’ve applied (and EI would NOT have been void) In Fletcher, F transfers to Lodge w/ FPI in F’s heirs… then, F dies, naming F’s wife in will… thus, F’s heirs AND F’s wife in litigation 2 different interpretations, BUT F’s wife wins either way If FPI was retained by transferor (PR/PT), then F devised said FPI to F’s wife in will (“F’s heirs” as words of limitation) If FPI was created in transferee (EI), then EI is void under RAP… in which case, PR (created as per original language being automatic) was devised to F’s wife in will Ethical considerations… Narrow scope of restriction description as precise as possible (the broader the scope, the more likely to viewed unfavorably in court) Narrow duration of restriction usually, NO reason to be perpetual Understanding of remedial device get “fight” over w/ before transaction is set in stone Title insurance provides a guaranteed title search anyone can do own title search… BUT, no one wants to Sometimes, violation of restriction does NOT show up in record (i.e. notice of violation NOT recorded, SoL has NOT run)…