A landowner validly conveyed a small office building to the green party "as long as they use it for operating quarters until the next presidential election." after the next presidential election, which was in three years, the building would go to a private organization that monitors and prepares comprehensive listings of gas prices throughout the country. a year after the conveyance, the landowner died, validly devising all of her property to her son. although this jurisdiction is a common law jurisdiction with respect to all real property considerations, the state's probate laws provide that future interests or estates in real property may be passed by will or descent in the same manner as present or possessory interests. last week, the green party and the gas monitoring organization joined together to sell the office building in fee simple absolute to a developer. the son filed suit to prevent the sale of the property to the developer. in this action, who should prevail?

Question

Business

Rebecca Graham

26 August, 12:08

A landowner validly conveyed a small office building to the green party "as long as they use it for operating quarters until the next presidential election." after the next presidential election, which was in three years, the building would go to a private organization that monitors and prepares comprehensive listings of gas prices throughout the country. a year after the conveyance, the landowner died, validly devising all of her property to her son. although this jurisdiction is a common law jurisdiction with respect to all real property considerations, the state's probate laws provide that future interests or estates in real property may be passed by will or descent in the same manner as present or possessory interests. last week, the green party and the gas monitoring organization joined together to sell the office building in fee simple absolute to a developer. the son filed suit to prevent the sale of the property to the developer. in this action, who should prevail?

+3

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

Marilyn Johns · Answer 1

The son

Explanation:

In this example, it is the son who should prevail. In this case, the grant did not provide for what would happen if the party stopped using the building. The party was only allowed to use the office building as operating headquarters during a 3 year period. This means that the son had the reverter interest. When a person holds property in fee for a determinate amount of time, he or she only holds the property as long as the event stated occurs. If this event happens, then the property would go back to the grantor (or in this case, the son).

Davion Coffey · Answer 2

The green party and the gas monitoring organization should prevail because the land owner had willed that the property be given to them.