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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2023)

handle is hein.ali/respdt0059 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2023 Citations 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 CHAPTER 3. DEFINITIONS § 3.4 Use Restraint Ohio, 2022. Quot. in diss. op.; Rptr's 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 Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers § 3.4, the dissent argued that the majority conflated the standards for restraints on use of property with standards for restraints on transfer of property, and this resulted in the majority holding as valid an unreasonable, direct restraint on alienation of the property. Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Public Works Commission, 200 N.E.3d 125, 146, 147. CHAPTER 4. VALIDITY OF RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION § 4.2 Validity of Forfeiture Restraint Ohio, 2022. Cit. 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. The dissent cited Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers §§ 4.2 and 4.3 in defining different categories of transfer restrictions, and argued that the transfer restriction COPYRIGHT (2023 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.