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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (July 2016 through April 2017)

handle is hein.ali/respdt0054 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 2D: DONATIVE TRANSFERS DIVISION I. SOCIAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON THE CREATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS BY DONATIVE TRANSFERS PART II. DIRECT RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION IN DONATIVE TRANSFERS Introductory Note Va.2016. Intro. Note quot. in sup. and in ftn. Administrator of the estate of grantor's sister who was deeded certain property by grantor brought an action against beneficiary under grantor's will, seeking a declaration that a provision in the deed that provided that the property would automatically revert to grantor if sister's son acquired any interest in or was permitted to occupy any portion of the property was void as an impermissible restraint on alienation. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, finding that the provision was void. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the provision created a possibility of a reverter in grantor and her heirs and lawfully vested defendant with the reversionary interest. In determining that the provision was a reasonable restraint on alienation, the court cited Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers to note that, historically, a grantor had the power to apply a condition alienating a particular person. Hamm v. Hazelwood, 292 Va. 153, 158, 159, 787 S.E.2d 144, 147, 148. CHAPTER 4. VALIDITY OF RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION § 4.2 Validity of Forfeiture Restraint Va.2016. Subsec. (3) quot. in sup. Administrator of the estate of grantor's sister who was deeded certain property by grantor brought an action against beneficiary under grantor's will, seeking a declaration that a provision in the deed that provided that the property would automatically revert to grantor if sister's son acquired any interest in or was permitted to occupy any portion of the property was void as an impermissible restraint on alienation. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, finding that the provision was void. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the provision created a possibility of a reverter in grantor and her heirs and lawfully vested defendant with the reversionary interest. Citing Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers § 4.2, the court noted that courts generally have upheld conditions that affected alienation rights that were not general as to time and person if, under all the circumstances of the case, the restraint was found to be reasonable, and, here, the restraint was reasonable. Hamm v. Hazelwood, 292 Va. 153, 159, 787 S.E.2d 144, 147, 148. A L For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.