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

LOG IN
LOG IN


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

handle is hein.ali/respdt9960 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 2: 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 4. VALIDITY OF RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION § 4.1 Validity of Disabling Restraint D.N.M.2020. Com (a) cit. in ftn. Federally-recognized Indian Tribe filed a complaint to quiet title against the United States, which had purchased land in and around a volcanic crater to create a National Preserve, alleging that it had aboriginal title to portions of the land. After a bench trial, this court entered judgment in favor of the United States, and then granted in part and denied in part Tribe's motion for reconsideration, holding that Tribe was not entitled to aboriginal title to the land. In making its decision, the court noted that the basic rule governing alienation of American Indian land was that only the United States could extinguish aboriginal title; consequently, a seller or buyer of tribal land had to show authority in federal law to allow a transfer of interest from a tribe, in contrast to the Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers § 4.1, which provided that common-law restraints on alienation of fee interests were upheld only in limited circumstances. Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 483 F.Supp.3d 1024, 1101. PART III. PROVISIONS IN RESTRAINT OF PERSONAL CONDUCT CHAPTER 6. RESTRAINTS ON MARRIAGE § 6.1 Restraints on Any First Marriage Ind.App.2020. Com. (c) and Rptr's Note 4 quot. in diss. op. Beneficiary of his mother's testamentary trust filed a petition against trustee, alleging that certain language of the trust was void under Indiana law because it provided for his inheritance to be held in a sub-trust if he was married at the time of mother's death. The trial court granted summary judgment for trustee. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the provision was void as a restraint on marriage and against public policy. The dissent argued that the trust language was enforceable under Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers § 6.1, because the form of beneficiary's inheritance was fixed at the moment of mother's death; thus, any action he might take with regard to marriage after the opening of her estate would be inconsequential, and the provision could not be said to encourage or discourage any behavior by beneficiary in a manner that could violate public policy regarding marriage. Rotert v. Stiles, 159 N.E.3d 46, 53, 54. 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.