Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
Under the statute of uses, modern real property law disregards this subtle distinction. [ citation needed ] A bargain and sale deed is especially used by local governments, fiduciaries such as executors , and in foreclosure sales by sheriffs and referees .
The merger also refers to the doctrine whereby "a fee simple estate, once fragmented into present and future interests, can thereafter be reconstituted. 'Merger is the absorption of a lesser estate by a greater estate, and takes place when two distinct estates of greater and lesser rank meet in the same person or class of persons at the same time without any intermediate estate.' "[1 ...
A common law rule "that a freehold contingent remainder which does not vest at or before the termination of the preceding freehold estate is destroyed. Such termination of the preceding estate might result from the natural expiration of that estate, or from forfeiture, or from merger."
In property law and real estate, a future interest is a legal right to property ownership that does not include the right to present possession or enjoyment of the property. Future interests are created on the formation of a defeasible estate; that is, an estate with a condition or event triggering transfer of possessory ownership. A common ...
A 72-hour clause, typically inserted in real estate sale contracts, is also known as an escape clause, release clause, kick-out clause, hedge clause or right of first refusal clause. [ 1 ] The 72-hour clause is a seller contingency which allows the seller to accept a buyer's contingent offer to purchase his/her property, while allowing the ...
The Fifth Amendment's Takings clause does not provide for the compensation of relocation expenses if the government takes a citizen's property. [1] Therefore, until 1962, citizens displaced by a federal project were guaranteed just compensation for the property taken by the government, but had no legal right or benefit for the expenses they paid to relocate.
A restraint on alienation, in the law of real property, is a clause used in the conveyance of real property that seeks to prohibit the recipient from selling or otherwise transferring their interest in the property.