Transcript Slide 1

MUSIC: Alicia de Larrocha, Piano
THE ART OF ALICIA DE
LARROCHA
Performances 1972-1981
Disc 1: Music of Johann Sebastian Bach
& Joseph Hadyn
Review Problem 6G (Rice)
Ramp as “Reasonable Modification”
Need to Show:
• Necessary to enjoyment of unit
• Reasonable
• Financial Means to Restore if restoration
reasonable (escrow or otherwise)
Review Problem 6G (Rice)
Ramp as “Reasonable Modification”
Need to Show: Necessary
• Likely not difficult question
• Use of front door requires 2 people to assist
• Use of rear door requires long trek: downhill +
uphill through dark alley + heavy doors + long
carpeted hallway
Review Problem 6G (Rice)
Ramp as “Reasonable Modification”
Need to Show: Reasonable
Arguments re Reasonableness of CC’s
Proposed Ramp?
• Quality Needed?
• Her Proposal re Representation & Z Board?
Review Problem 6G (Rice)
Ramp as “Reasonable Modification”
Need to Show: Financial Means to Restore
if restoration reasonable.
• Assume C & T could afford escrow.
• Should restoration (i.e., removing ramp)
be required?
PROBLEM 7G: CORN
(7G): “To my only son, Larry, for life, then to
Larry's children and their heirs." Larry has
two children, Moe and Curly.
Larry?
(7G): “To my only son, Larry, for life, then to
Larry's children and their heirs." Larry has two
children, Moe and Curly.
Larry: Life Estate
Moe & Curly?
(7G): “To my only son, Larry, for life, then to Larry's
children and their heirs." Larry has two children, Moe
and Curly.
Larry: Life Estate
Moe & Curly: Vested Remainders
(in F.S.) Subject to Open
Use of “subject to open” makes clear that interest is
not as certain as a vested remainder usually is. We
don’t use phrase with contingent remainder, which is
always uncertain.
(7G): “To my only son, Larry, for life, then to
Larry's children and their heirs." Larry has two
children, Moe and Curly.
Larry: Life Estate
Moe & Curly: Vested Remainders (in F.S.) Subject
to Open
Larry has another child, Stella. Stella has?
(7G): “To my only son, Larry, for life, then to
Larry's children and their heirs.“
Larry: Life Estate
Moe & Curly & Stella: Vested Remainders (in
F.S.) Subject to Open
Curly (C) dies, leaving his wife, Noreen, and a child,
Orrin; C's will devises all property to Noreen.
What happens to C’s interest?
(7G): “To my only son, Larry, for life, then to
Larry's children and their heirs."
Larry: Life Estate
Moe & Noreen & Stella: Vested Remainders
(in F.S.) Subject to Open
Larry dies. State of the title?
(7G): “To my only son, Larry, for life, then to
Larry's children and their heirs."
Larry dies. State of the title?
Moe & Noreen & Stella share fee simple
absolute (tenants in common).
For this course, only need to know that
they’d share; don’t need to know term
“tenants in common” or what it means.
DEFEASIBLE FEES
DEFEASIBLE FEES
Two Relevant Distinctions
1. Automatic termination v. Needs
action by future interest holder
2. Who holds future interest?:
Grantor v. Grantee
DEFEASIBLE FEES
Restatement Terms
•FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE
•FEE SIMPLE ON CONDITION
SUBSEQUENT
•FEE SIMPLE ON EXECUTORY
LIMITATION
FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE
• OPERATION: Self-Executing (= Automatic
Termination)
FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE
• OPERATION: Self-Executing
• KEY LANGUAGE: “So long as”, “While”, “Until”
FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE
• OPERATION: Self-Executing
• KEY LANGUAGE: “So long as”, “While”, “Until”
• FUTURE INTEREST: “Possibility of Reverter”
(in GRANTOR)
FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE
EXAMPLE: To Estelle and her
heirs so long as asparagus is
not grown on the property.
FEE SIMPLE ON
CONDITION SUBSEQUENT
• OPERATION: Grantor must act
FEE SIMPLE ON
CONDITION SUBSEQUENT
• OPERATION: Grantor must act
• KEY LANGUAGE:
– “But if”, “provided that if”, “on condition that if”
PLUS
– “O may [re]enter and [re]claim the land”
FEE SIMPLE ON
CONDITION SUBSEQUENT
• OPERATION: Grantor must act
• KEY LANGUAGE: “But if”, “provided that if”, “on
condition that if” PLUS “O may [re]enter and
[re]claim the land”
• FUTURE INTEREST: Right of [Re]Entry
(in GRANTOR)
FEE SIMPLE ON
CONDITION SUBSEQUENT
EXAMPLE: To Estelle and her
heirs, but if asparagus is
grown on the property, I can
reenter and claim the land
FEE SIMPLE ON
EXECUTORY LIMITATION
• OPERATION: Either self-executing or grantee
has to act.
Warning: Inconsistency
• Textbook says Fee Simple on Executory Limitation
terminates automatically (P580)
• For our purposes, assume that sometimes, a Fee
Simple on Executory Limitation can operate like a
Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent
• “To Sonny & his heirs, but if Sonny ever runs for
Congress, Cher may enter and take the land.”
FEE SIMPLE ON
EXECUTORY LIMITATION
• OPERATION: Either self-executing or grantee
has to act.
• KEY LANGUAGE: Creates interest in 3d party
if condition violated
FEE SIMPLE ON
EXECUTORY LIMITATION
• OPERATION: Either self-executing or grantee has to
act.
• KEY LANGUAGE: Creates interest in 3d party if
condition violated
• FUTURE INTEREST: Executory Interest
(in 3d party grantee)
FEE SIMPLE ON EXECUTORY LIMITATION:
EXAMPLES
• To Estelle and her heirs so long as asparagus
is not grown on the property, otherwise to
Bob
FEE SIMPLE ON EXECUTORY LIMITATION:
EXAMPLES
• To Estelle and her heirs so long as asparagus is not
grown on the property, otherwise to Bob
• To Estelle and her heirs, but if asparagus is
grown on the property, Bob can reenter and
claim the land
DEFEASIBLE FEES: Restatement Terms
•FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE
(to grantor; automatic)
•F.S. ON CONDITION SUBSEQUENT
(to grantor; must act)
•F.S. ON EXECUTORY LIMITATION
(to grantee; either way)
Accessorizing: Defeasible Fees & Matching Future
Interests
FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE &
POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER
F.S. ON CONDITION SUBSEQUENT &
RIGHT OF ENTRY
F.S. ON EXECUTORY LIMITATION &
EXECUTORY INTEREST
Defeasible Finite Estates: Examples
Term of Years on Condition Subsequent:
“To Joshua for 20 years, but if he ever passes the
bar exam, my heirs can enter & retake.”
Life Estate on Executory Limitation
“To Richard for life, but to Chris & his heirs if
Chris ever passes the bar exam.”
Back to CORN:
(7H): Thelma conveys "to Louise for 99 years if
Louise so long live."
Louise?
(7H): Thelma conveys "to Louise for 99 years if
Louise so long live."
Louise: Term of years determinable.
• Most likely to operate as a life estate, but
L might live 99 years.
• Used where there is some legal or tax
reason to avoid life estate.
(7H): Thelma conveys "to Louise for 99 years if
Louise so long live."
Louise: Term of years determinable.
What other interests are there?
(7H): Thelma conveys "to Louise for 99 years if Louise
so long live."
Louise: Term of years determinable.
Thelma:
Possibility of Reverter plus
Reversion =
Reversion (Merger)
DOCTRINE OF MERGER
If one person becomes the owner of two
contiguous interests, the interests will “merge”
DOCTRINE OF MERGER
If one person becomes the owner of two contiguous
interests, the interests will merge.
Example: Eric has a life estate. Katie holds the
reversion that follows it. If Eric purchases the
reversion from Katie, it merges with his life estate
and he will have a fee simple absolute.
DOCTRINE OF MERGER
If one person becomes the owner of two contiguous
interests, the interests will merge.
Mahrenholz v.
County Board
DQ 115: Barley
Once Again:
IGNORE THE JACQMAINS
1. Delete last paragraph on P581.
2. Delete last complete paragraph on P582.
3. Pretend you never heard of the Jacqmains.
Mahrenholz v. County Board
MAJOR EVENTS
•
•
•
•
•
3/51: Grant to SD#1
2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir
5/73: Property used for storage only
5/77: HH conveys interest to Ms
9/77: HH releases interest to SD#1
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSD +PR
•
•
•
•
•
3/51: Grant to SD#1: SD-FSD Hs-PR
2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir?
5/73: Property used for storage only
5/77: HH conveys interest to Ms
9/77: HH releases interest to SD#1
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSD +PR
• 2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir SDFSD HH-PR
• 5/73: Property used for storage only?
(2 Possibilities: Violation or Not)
• 5/77: HH conveys interest to Ms
• 9/77: HH releases interest to SD#1
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSD +PR
2/69: SD-FSD HH-PR
GRANT VIOLATED
HH-FEE SIMPLE
ABSOLUTE
5/77 HH --> Ms?
NO VIOLATION
SD-FSD HH-PR
5/77 HH --> Ms?
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSD +PR
GRANT VIOLATED
HH-FS ABSOLUTE
5/77 HH --> Ms?
Ms-FS Absolute
9/77 HH release to SD?
NO VIOLATION
SD-FSD HH-PR
5/77 HH --> Ms?
SD-FSD HH-PR
9/77 HH release to SD?
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSD +PR
GRANT VIOLATED
Ms-FS Absolute
9/77 HH release to SD?
NO VIOLATION
SD-FSD HH-PR
9/77 HH release to SD?
Ms - FS Absolute
SD - FS Absolute
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSCS +RE
•
•
•
•
•
3/51: Grant to SD#1: SD-FSCS Hs-RE
2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir?
5/73: Property used for storage only
5/77: HH conveys interest to Ms
9/77: HH releases interest to SD#1
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSCS +RE
• 2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir SDFSCS HH-RE
• 5/73: Property used for storage only?
(2 Possibilities: Violation or Not)
• 5/77: HH conveys interest to Ms
• 9/77: HH releases interest to SD#1
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSCS +RE
2/69: SD-FSCS HH-RE
GRANT VIOLATED
SD-FSCS HH-RE
5/77 HH --> Ms?
NO VIOLATION
SD-FSCS HH-RE
5/77 HH --> Ms?
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSCS +RE
GRANT VIOLATED
SD-FSCS HH-RE
5/77 HH --> Ms?
SD-FSCS HH-RE
9/77 HH release to SD?
NO VIOLATION
SD-FSCS HH-RE
5/77 HH --> Ms?
SD-FSCS HH-RE
9/77 HH release to SD?
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ115: MAJOR EVENTS: FSCS +RE
GRANT VIOLATED
SD-FSCS HH-RE
9/77 HH release to SD?
NO VIOLATION
SD-FSCS HH-RE
9/77 HH release to SD?
SD - FS Absolute
SD - FS Absolute
Mahrenholz: Summary of Possibilities
FSD/PR
FSCS/RE
Violation
Mahrenholzes School District
No Violation School District School District
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQs 116-18: Distinguishing
Fee Simple Determinable from
Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent
(More Barley)
Mahrenholz v. County Board
The court says (Top para. P583) : “The type of
interest held governs the mode of reinvestment with
title if reinvestment is to occur.”
DQ116. What does the court
mean by “reinvestment” ?
DQ117: (P584, 3d full para.) “In Northwestern
Univ. …, a conveyance was ‘made upon the express condition that… Wesley Hospital… shall
erect a hospital building on said lot … and that
on the failure of … Wesley Hospital to carry out
these conditions the title shall revert to Northwestern University.’ This language cannot be
interpreted as creating anything but a fee
simple subject to a condition subsequent…”
WHY?
DQ118: In a deleted passage in its discussion of McElvain, the court says that “as an
action in ejectment was brought…, the difference between a fee simple determinable
and a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent would have no practical effect ….”
Why does it believe this?
Mahrenholz P583: “[A] grantor should give a FSD if
he intends to give property for so long as it is needed
for the purposes for which it is given and no longer,
but he should employ a FSCS if he intends to compel
compliance with a condition by penalty of a
forfeiture.”
- Pretty fine distinction
- Court is describing idealized use of the forms
- Can use to argue a grant is FSD or FSCS
Use a FSD “to give property for so long as it
is needed for the purposes for which it is
given and no longer”
• To Xavier, so long as he operates his dental practice on the
premises.
• To Yolanda, so long as she doesn’t remarry.
• To Zebulon University, so long as it is used as a research
laboratory.
Use a FSCS “to compel compliance with a
condition by penalty of a forfeiture.”
• To Xavier, but if the property is ever used for commercial
purposes …
• To Yolanda, but if alcohol is ever used on the premises …
• To Zebulon University for construction of a science
building, but if the building is not completed within 5
years or if it ever ceases to be used for educational
purposes …
DQ119-122 (OATS)
Mahrenholz v. County Board
To the Trustees of School District No. 1:
"to be used for school purpose only;
otherwise to revert to Grantors herein.”
DQ119: Fee Simple Determinable or
Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent?
Arguments for FSD?
"to be used for school purpose only;
otherwise to revert to Grantors herein.”: FSD
•
•
•
•
“only” suggests automatic
condition in 1st clause
“to revert” (v. “may re-enter”) suggests automatic
similar grants held FSD
Arguments for FSCS?
"to be used for school purpose only;
otherwise to revert to Grantors herein.” FSCS:
• 2 clauses usually used for FSCS
• No time words
• Most states presume FSCS
Mahrenholz v. County Board
DQ120: Under what circumstances
might the distinction between a fee
simple determinable and a fee
simple on condition subsequent be
significant?
FSD v. FSCS: Consequences
• Transferability after breach
(Mahrenholz)
FSD v. FSCS: Consequences
• Transferability after breach
• Adverse Possession
FSD v. FSCS: Consequences
• Transferability after breach
• Adverse Possession
• Income from land after breach
(to grantor if FSD)
FSD v. FSCS: Consequences
• Transferability after breach
• Adverse Possession
• Income from land after breach
• Waiver/Estoppel by future interest holder
(possible if FSCS)
DQ120: Why do so many
grants fail to indicate clearly
which interest is intended?