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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/respdt9961 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 CHAPTER 3. DEFINITIONS § 3.4 Use Restraint Va.2021. Quot. in sup. Title holder of real property sued church and descendants of original donors of property underlying church, alleging that a restriction in the deed conveying the land, under which the property would revert to donors or their heirs if it ceased to be used for Christian worship, should be rendered void for being an impermissible restraint on alienation. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint. This court affirmed, holding that the reverter clause was not void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. Citing Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers § 3.4, the court explained that a reverter clause was a restriction on use and was not a restraint on alienation. Canova Land and Investment Company v. Lynn, 856 S.E.2d 581, 584. CHAPTER 4. VALIDITY OF RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION § 4.2 Validity of Forfeiture Restraint Va.2021. Cit. in sup., quot. in case quot. in sup. Title holder of real property sued church and descendants of original donors of property underlying church, alleging that a restriction in the deed conveying the land, under which the property would revert to donors or their heirs if it ceased to be used for Christian worship, should be rendered void for being an impermissible restraint on alienation. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint. This court affirmed, holding that the reverter clause was not void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. Citing Restatement Second of Property: Donative Transfers § 4.2, the court explained that, even if the reverter clause were a form of restraint, it was reasonable under the circumstances, because the original donation was a charitable gift, and state law favored restraints on property if doing so served the gift's purpose. Canova Land and Investment Company v. Lynn, 856 S.E.2d 581, 584. PART III. PROVISIONS IN RESTRAINT OF PERSONAL CONDUCT CHAPTER 6. RESTRAINTS ON MARRIAGE § 6.1 Restraints on Any First Marriage COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AILJ 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.