Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Unlike disabling restraints, the effectiveness of the lawsuit does not prevent the transfer from being made. However, the Supreme Court says promissory restraints are not permissible. The promissory note discourages the person getting ready to sell the property which is the same effect as the disabling restraint. Forfeiture restraints
In property law, alienation is the voluntary act of an owner of some property to convey or transfer the property to another. [1] Alienability is the quality of being alienable , i.e., the capacity for a piece of property or a property right to be sold or otherwise transferred from one party to another.
When a tract of land is purchased with a mortgage and then split up and sold, the "inverse order of alienation rule" applies to decide parties liable for the unpaid debt. When a mortgaged tract of land is split up and sold, upon default, the mortgagee first forecloses on lands still owned by the mortgagor and proceeds against other owners in an ...
Tyson’s ex-husband Tom Oddo sued Tyson in 2000, winning what was then a record judgment of $1.4 million in an alienation of affection lawsuit. In 2003, an appeals court knocked the decision down ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Alienation: O's interest is freely transferable. This type of future interest can only follow the fee simple determinable . The vesting of the future interest is determinable at the time of the grant, because reverter is automatic if the condition is broken—a possibility of reverter, therefore, is not subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities .
However, while a violation of the rule against perpetuities is also a violation of the rule against unreasonable restraints on alienation, the reciprocal is not true. [5] As one has stated, "The rule against perpetuities is an ancient, but still vital, rule of property law intended to enhance marketability of property interests by limiting ...
The Rule in Shelley's Case is a rule of law that may apply to certain future interests in real property and trusts created in common law jurisdictions. [1]: 181 It was applied as early as 1366 in The Provost of Beverly's Case [1]: 182 [2] but in its present form is derived from Shelley's Case (1581), [3] in which counsel stated the rule as follows: