Cases White v. Brown Operative text: White to have my home to live in and not to be sold. My house is not to be sold Brown claimed life estate Holding: Granted fee simple absolute with invalid restraint on alienation (Flips common law rule Baker owns life estate, wants to sell land and put in trust to live on Baker v. Weedon – Remaindermen (grandkids) object claiming waste Holding: Property sold if (1) necessary and (2) in best interest of all parties Rule Alienation of life estate in favor of life tenant is affirmative waste – Action to prevent barn being torn down Woodrick v. Wood – Tear down would increase land value = not waste $3200 to Woodrick for value of barn to protect her interest Life tenant can make substantial alterations to the property as long as Melms v. PBR – it diminish the value of the remainder/reversion doesn’t Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees Operative text: This land to be used for school purposes only; otherwise to revert to = condition to = Grantors herein “only” subsequent, “otherwise revert” determinable Holding: Grant is for fee simple determinable which cannot be transferred inter but can be inherited Result is that son sold property interest to Board vivos, NOTE: Important because either the son had the property interest through reversion or he had right of re-entry which be transferred couldn’t Mountain Brow Lodge v. Toscano Grant of land to Mountain Brow restricted use to benefit Mountain Brow only, reverts to grantor if not used for Mountain Brow or if attempt to sell Holding: Sale restriction is void, but use restriction is acceptable NOTE: Use restriction like this would have to be periodically recorded Dissent: Use restriction amounts to a restraint on alienation Invalid use restriction providing land must be Falls City v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. – used as company HQ which has the practical effect of restraining alienability by unreasonably limiting the class of person to whom it may be alienated Land to be used only as a park Ink v. City of Canton – Issue: Who gets proceeds from condemnation of defeasible fee? What is the value of a reversion/right of reentry/executory interest? Common law (Majority rule) Reverter has no value – Holding: Ink should get difference between fee simple determinable and fee simple absolute
Cases White v. Brown Operative text: White to have my home to live in and not to be sold. My house is not to be sold Brown claimed life estate Holding: Granted fee simple absolute with invalid restraint on alienation (Flips common law rule Baker v. Weedon – Baker owns life estate, wants to sell land and put in trust to live on Remaindermen (grandkids) object claiming waste Holding: Property sold if (1) necessary and (2) in best interest of all parties Rule – Alienation of life estate in favor of life tenant is affirmative waste Woodrick v. Wood – Action to prevent barn being torn down Tear down would increase land value = not waste $3200 to Woodrick for value of barn to protect her interest Melms v. PBR – Life tenant can make substantial alterations to the property as long as it doesn’t diminish the value of the remainder/reversion Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees Operative text: This land to be used for school purposes only; otherwise to revert to Grantors herein “only” = condition subsequent, “otherwise to revert” = determinable Holding: Grant is for fee simple determinable which cannot be transferred inter vivos, but can be inherited Result is that son sold property interest to Board NOTE: Important because either the son had the property interest through reversion or he had right of re-entry which couldn’t be transferred Mountain Brow Lodge v. Toscano Grant of land to Mountain Brow restricted use to benefit Mountain Brow only, reverts to grantor if not used for Mountain Brow or if attempt to sell Holding: Sale restriction is void, but use restriction is acceptable NOTE: Use restriction like this would have to be periodically recorded Dissent: Use restriction amounts to a restraint on alienation Falls City v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. – Invalid use restriction providing land must be used as company HQ which has the practical effect of restraining alienability by unreasonably limiting the class of person to whom it may be alienated Ink v. City of Canton – Land to be used only as a park Issue: Who gets proceeds from condemnation of defeasible fee? What is the value of a reversion/right of reentry/executory interest? Common law (Majority rule) – Reverter has no value Holding: Ink should get difference between fee simple determinable and fee simple absolute
Property_Outline_Sterk_Spring_2012.docx