About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2023)

handle is hein.ali/relwprpty0265 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2023 Citations PROPERTY DIVISION 3. FUTURE INTERESTS PART 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 7. FUTURE INTERESTS DIFFERENTIATED § 153. Future Interests Differentiated from Other Property Interests D.C.App.2022. Quot. in sup. Taxpayers involved in the purchase and sale of two commercial properties that were encumbered by ground leases appealed from the District of Columbia's assessment of transfer taxes on the transaction, alleging that the assessment was improper, because, under relevant statutes, a substantial portion of the transaction was better construed as an untaxable early termination of the leases. The trial court granted taxpayers' motion for summary judgment. This court reversed in part and remanded, holding that the special warranty deeds through which the properties were transferred included reversionary interests in improvements on the properties, and that such interests were subject to taxation. Citing Restatement of Property § 153, the court explained that future reversionary interests were legally cognizable interests, and the relevant statutes were broadly construed to impose taxes on transfers of interests in real property. District of Columbia v. Design Center Owner (D.C.) LLC, 286 A.3d 1010, 1023. DIVISION 4. SOCIAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON THE CREATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS PART 2. RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION Introductory Note Ohio, 2022. Intro. Note quot. in diss. op. Purchaser of subsurface mineral rights in real property from nonprofit organization, which had acquired the property through a conservation grant from the state public-works commission, sued commission, seeking a declaration that organization did not violate a deed restriction that was required under the terms of the grant when it sold the mineral rights without commission's prior written consent. The trial court denied commission's motion for partial summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. This court affirmed, holding that the restriction was valid, because it was reasonable and served a charitable or public purpose, and that organization's transfer of the mineral rights violated the restriction. Citing the Restatement of Property, the dissent COPYRIGHT C2023 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.