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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - April 2021)

handle is hein.ali/respdt9959 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 2D: DONATIVE TRANSFERS Generally Conn.2020. Cit. generally in sup. Beneficiaries of two family trusts created by grandfather and great- grandmother brought a declaratory action against co-beneficiaries, alleging that the trusts conveyed the trust corpus directly to the grandchildren of grandfather upon the death of the measuring lives, which included the lives of all three of grandfather's children, because the terms of the trusts gifted trust assets to the grantors' issue who were then living at the time the trusts expired. The trial court entered judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that the proper interpretation of the trusts was that the trust corpus should be divided equally among the three children of grandfather. The court rejected plaintiffs' assertion that it was improper to look to the Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers and the Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers to interpret the trusts because those Restatements did not exist at the time the trusts were created, and explained that courts were not limited to law decided prior to the execution of the trust instruments. Schwerin v. Ratcliffe, 238 A.3d 1, 16. DIVISION I. SOCIAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON THE CREATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS BY DONATIVE TRANSFERS PART II. DIRECT RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION IN DONATIVE TRANSFERS CHAPTER 4. VALIDITY OF RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION § 4.1 Validity of Disabling Restraint D.N.M.2019. Com. (a) cit. in ftn. Native American tribe sued the United States and gas company, seeking to quiet title to lands of a preserve occupied by gas company, alleging that plaintiff had the exclusive right to use, occupy, and possess lands in the preserve pursuant to its continuing aboriginal title to the preserve. On remand, this court entered judgment for defendants on other grounds, holding, inter alia, that a grant of the lands by Congress to the heirs of a private person did not extinguish plaintiff's aboriginal title to the preserve, because the grant merely conveyed fee title to heirs and did not constitute clear and unambiguous intent by the sovereign United States to extinguish plaintiff's aboriginal title. The court observed that requiring a seller or buyer of Tribal land to show authority in federal law to allow a transfer of interest from the Tribe was in contrast to the common law set forth in Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers § 4.1, Comment a, under which restraints against alienation were generally upheld only in limited circumstances. Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 430 F.Supp.3d 943, 1189. DIVISION II. POWERS OF APPOINTMENT, CLASS GIFTS, AND RELATED MATTERS COPYRIGHT ©2021 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.