Author name: jsinger

Fee simple absolute found despite language of “in trust” and “for the uses, purposes” of the YWCA

In a standard application of traditional estates doctrine, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has found a fee simple absolute despite language in the grant to the YWCA stating that the property was given “in trust, nevertheless, for the uses, purposes and trusts aforesaid.” Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, Inc. of Boston, Inc. v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Philadelphia, Inc., 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1119, 2016 WL 7162737 (Table) (Mass. 2016). Traditionally any language in a conveyance of a fee simple that explains the “purpose” of the transfer or the “use” to which it is to be put, is interpreted as precatory language that has no legal effect on the title that is conveyed. The interpretive principle of the “presumption against forfeitures” suggests that any retained future interest or right of control in the grantor must be created explicitly and unambiguously. Some courts interpret this language to create an implied trust, or a fee simple …

Fee simple absolute found despite language of “in trust” and “for the uses, purposes” of the YWCA Read More »

Admitted student status at public university held to be a property right that cannot be taken without due process of law

A federal court in Virginia has held that a student at a public university has a constitutionally-protected property interest in his place at the university and that he cannot be deprived of that right without due process of law under the fourteenth amendment. Doe v. Alger, 2016 WL 7429458 (W.D. Va. 2016). The student faced disciplinary hearings arising oiut of allegations that he sexually assaulted another student. He complained that the appeals process was unfair. He was found not responsible after the first hearing but after submission of new evidence he claims he was not able to fully contest, he was held responsible by the appeals committee. The court did not rule on the substantive question of the fairness of the procedures but did hold that students at a public university have a constitutionally protected right to continue as admitted students unless deprived of that right by due process of law. Suspending the student …

Admitted student status at public university held to be a property right that cannot be taken without due process of law Read More »

Town cannot impose greater parking requirements for a mosque than for churches or synagogues

A town violated the Religious Land Use-Institutionazlied Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5, when its planning board required a mosque to provide off-street parking for every single member as a condition of receiving a building permit when it had not imposed similar requirements for churches and synagogues. Islamic Soc’y of Basking Ridge v. Twp. of Bernards, 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 180568 (D.N.J. 2016). The town had reasoned that, because religious services were on Friday afternoons, almost every person would be using a car to attend services while the same would not be true for churches and syanagogues. The court found this reasoning to be discriminatory since the proposed mosque plan was subjected to unprecedented individualized inquiry that had not taken place for other non-Islamic religious institutions in the past. That constituted a RLUIPA violation because it violated the “equal terms” provisions which prohibit “impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation in …

Town cannot impose greater parking requirements for a mosque than for churches or synagogues Read More »

Engagement rings must be returned if the marriage does not happen

The Supreme Court of Viriginia held that engagement rings are conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage and that, when the marriage is called off, the ring donor has a right to have the ring returned. McGrath v. Dockendorf, 2016 Va. LEXIS 187 (Va. 2016). The technical holding of the case was that such claims are not barred by the “heart balm” statute, Va. Code § 8.01-220, that precludes claims for breach of promise to marry. Older cases held that engagement ring gifts were permanent but the modern approach is to view them as conditional and this court follows the modern trend.

Sex offender cannot be evicted from state-subsidized housing because of regulatory limitation imposed after the lease began

The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that a registered sex offender cannot be evicted from housing subisidized by the state when he obtained the subsidy and the housing before passage of the state law banning such assistance. Shannon v. Comm’r of Housing, 140 A.3d 903 (Conn. 2016) (see dissenting opinion here). The court applied a state law that provides that any law that imposes “any new obligation on any person or corporation shall [not] be construed to have a retroactive effect.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §55-3. Under that law a new regulation that denies housing assistance to registered sex offenders could not be applied retroactively. The Court noted, however, that “although there is a property interest in the receipt of a public benefit so long as it is available, without statutory terms restricting its authority to do so, the legislature remains free to change or eliminate benefit entitlements by amending or repealing the …

Sex offender cannot be evicted from state-subsidized housing because of regulatory limitation imposed after the lease began Read More »

Another court holds that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination

A federal district court has held that discrimination because of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination. EEOC v. Scott Med. Health Ctr., P.C., 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 153744 (W.D. Pa. 2016). Plaintiff complained of a sexually hostile work environment by deriding his sexual orientation. The court noted that “[t]here is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality.” The Supreme Court has never held that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination and a determination on this issue will have to wait until choice of the next Supreme Court Justice and an appropriate case.

Town’s extension of an easement to the general public overburdens and exceeds the scope of the easement

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has held that opening an easement to the general public may overburden it when the easement had not previously been used in that manner, giving the owner of the servient estate the chance to prove that the increased use interfered with his retained property rights in the underlying land and exceeded the scope of the rights included in the easement. Goff v. Town of Randolph, 56 N.E.3d 893 (Table), 2016 WL 4258381 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).

An easement cannot be used to reach land to which it is not appurtenant

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that an easement cannot be extended even for a short way to access land to which it is not appurtenant. When an easement is created to enable access to a particular parcel of land, it can be used only for that purpose and not to access other parcels of land even if continguous. Taylor v. Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Comm’n, 60 N.E>3d 319 (Mass. 2016).

Why you should record your mortgage

In a straight-forward application of the relevant recording statute, the Massachusetts Land Court has held that a son who received a deed to the land without notice of a prior reverse mortgage is not subject to the mortgage since it was not recorded and he had no other means to achieve notice of it. https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/macourts/ 57 N.E.3d 1065 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).

An owner can obtain property by acquiescence even if the neighboring land is unoccupied

The Utah Supreme Court has held that an owner can obtain property “by acquiescence” if the owner occupies a strip of the neighbor’s land in a visible manner without objection.  Anderson v. Fautin, 2016 UT 22, 379 P.3d 1186 (Utah 2016). Although “acquiescence” suggests that a neighbor is aware of the placement of the border and either agrees or does not object to it, the Court found that the same doctrine should apply even if the neighboring land was not occupied. Holding otherwise would reduce the security that comes from not having the neighbor object to placement of a fence. The doctrine in Utah requires a claimant to satisfy four elements:  (i) occupation up to a visible line marked by monuments, fences, or buildings; (ii) mutual acquiescence in the line as a boundary; (iii) for a period of at least 20 years; (iv) by adjoining landowners. The doctrine is distinguished from adverse …

An owner can obtain property by acquiescence even if the neighboring land is unoccupied Read More »

Scroll to Top