music: alicia de larrocha, piano the art of alicia de larrocha performances 1972-1981 disc 1: music...

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)


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


Ramp as “Reasonable Modification” Need to Show: Reasonable

Arguments re Reasonableness of CC’s Proposed Ramp?

•Quality Needed?•Her Proposal re Representation & Z Board?


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 EstateMoe & 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 EstateMoe & Curly: Vested Remainders

(in F.S.) Subject to OpenUse 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 EstateMoe & 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 EstateMoe & 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 FEESTwo Relevant Distinctions

1. Automatic termination v. Needs action by future interest holder

2. Who holds future interest?: Grantor v. Grantee

DEFEASIBLE FEESRestatement Terms

•FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE

•FEE SIMPLE ON CONDITION SUBSEQUENT

•FEE SIMPLE ON EXECUTORY LIMITATION

FEE SIMPLE DETERMINABLE

• OPERATION: Self-Executing (= Automatic Termination)


• OPERATION: Self-Executing• KEY LANGUAGE: “So long as”, “While”,

“Until”


• OPERATION: Self-Executing• KEY LANGUAGE: “So long as”, “While”, “Until”

• FUTURE INTEREST: “Possibility of Reverter” (in GRANTOR)


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


• 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”


• 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)


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.”



• KEY LANGUAGE: Creates interest in 3d party if condition violated



• 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?


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.


Louise: Term of years determinable.

What other interests are there?


Louise: Term of years determinable.Thelma: Possibility of Reverter plus

Reversion =Reversion (Merger)

DOCTRINE OF MERGERIf one person becomes the owner of two

contiguous interests, the interests will “merge”

DOCTRINE OF MERGERIf 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 MERGERIf one person becomes the owner of two contiguous

interests, the interests will merge.

Mahrenholz v. County BoardDQ 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 SD-FSD 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

+PR2/69: SD-FSD HH-PR

GRANT VIOLATEDHH-FEE SIMPLE

ABSOLUTE5/77 HH --> Ms?

NO VIOLATIONSD-FSD HH-PR

5/77 HH --> Ms?


+PRGRANT VIOLATEDHH-FS ABSOLUTE5/77 HH --> Ms?Ms-FS Absolute

9/77 HH release to SD?

NO VIOLATIONSD-FSD HH-PR5/77 HH --> Ms?

SD-FSD HH-PR9/77 HH release to SD?


+PR

GRANT VIOLATEDMs-FS Absolute


Ms - FS Absolute

NO VIOLATIONSD-FSD HH-PR


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


+RE• 2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir SD-

FSCS 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


+RE2/69: SD-FSCS HH-REGRANT VIOLATED

SD-FSCS HH-RE5/77 HH --> Ms?

NO VIOLATIONSD-FSCS HH-RE5/77 HH --> Ms?


+REGRANT VIOLATEDSD-FSCS HH-RE5/77 HH --> Ms?SD-FSCS HH-RE


NO VIOLATIONSD-FSCS HH-RE

5/77 HH --> Ms?SD-FSCS HH-RE



+REGRANT VIOLATEDSD-FSCS HH-RE


SD - FS Absolute

NO VIOLATIONSD-FSCS HH-RE


SD - FS Absolute

Mahrenholz: Summary of PossibilitiesFSD/PR FSCS/RE

Violation Mahrenholzes School District

No Violation School District School District

Mahrenholz v. County Board

DQs 116-18: Distinguishing Fee Simple Determinable Fee Simple Determinable from

Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent (More Barley)(More Barley)


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 ex-press 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 North-western 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 discuss-ion of McElvain, the court says that “as an action in ejectment was brought…, the dif-ference between a fee simple determinable and a fee simple subject to a condition sub-sequent 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 BoardTo the Trustees of School District No.

1:

"to be used for school purpose only; otherwise to revert to

Grantors herein.”DQ119: Fee Simple Determinable DQ119: Fee Simple Determinable or

Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent?Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent?

Arguments for FSD?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?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


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


• Income from land after breach (to grantor if FSD)

FSD v. FSCS: Consequences• Transferability after breach


• 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?

music: alicia de larrocha, piano the art of alicia de larrocha performances 1972-1981 disc 1: music...

Documents

larrys children

g riceramp

life estatemoe curly

life estatemoe noreen

reasonable modification

vested remainders

restoration reasonable

condition subsequentfee