European Union dispute about inheritance rights of children

/ Wills and Inheritance

Both Great Britain and the United States have long traditions of letting individuals  write wills to determine who owns their property when they die. Those laws are tempered by statutes protecting the rights of spouses to some portion of the decedent’s estate. But both countries allow parents to disinherit their children. See Estate of Max Feinberg, 2009 WL 3063395 (Ill. 2009)(lawful to refuse to leave property to grandchildren because they married non-Jews). However, most other countries in Europe consider it both remarkable and close to barbaric to allow parents to disinherit their children; indeed, in 26 of 27 European Union countries, a large part of the estate of the deceased is reserved in equal shares for surviving children. This difference has erupted into a dramatic conflict as the EU announced rules for distribution of property located in more than one EU country. Not only do the two sides have differing views of …

European Union dispute about inheritance rights of children Read More »

Back yard windmill controversy on Cape Cod, Massachusetts

/ Environmental Law, Nuisance, Zoning

The Planning Board in Bourne, Massachusetts rejected an application from a home owner to install a 132-foot tall windmill in her back yard that would have generated enough electricity to power her home. Some people in other towns, including Vineyard Haven, Mass. have succeeded to getting permission to install these devices. read article

Does a same-sex couple have to move back to Massachusetts to get divorced?

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

A judge in Texas has allowed a couple married in Massachusetts to get divorced in Texas even though Texas law does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. The couple was married in Massachusetts but then moved to Texas when one of them was transferred by his company. They decided to divorce after moving to Texas. If the Texas courts cannot grant the divorce, then one of them would have to move back to Massachusetts and live there for a full year before a divorce could be granted. If they want a Massachusetts court to order equitable distribution of the property acquired during the marriage, both would have to move back to Massachusetts. To avoid this result, Texas judge Tena Callahan ruled that it violated the equal protection clause for Texas not to recognize the validity of the Massachusetts marriage. The Texas attorney general has vowed to appeal to overturn …

Does a same-sex couple have to move back to Massachusetts to get divorced? Read More »

New York changes adverse possession law

/ Adverse Possession

New York substantially changed its adverse possession law in 2008, effectively abolishing adverse possession in most border dispute cases. The law allows an adverse possessor to acquire property by building a permanent structure that encroaches on land owned by another but denies adverse possession by deeming “permissive and non-adverse” what the statute calls “de minimums non-structural encroachments” such as lawn mowing, plantings, fences and sheds. N.Y. Real Prop. Acts §543.

Massachusetts SJC finds potential consumer protection law violation in case of subprime mortgages

/ Mortgages

In Commonwealth v. Fremont Investment & Loan, 897 N.E.2d 548 (Mass. 2008), the highest state court in Massachusetts allowed the Attorney General to move forward on a claim that adjustable rate mortgages violated the state consumer protection act as “unfair or deceptive” practices when the borrowers’ incomes were not high even to allow them to afford to pay the higher interest rates. Granting mortgages on the assumption that the borrower would refinance at that point or the lender would foreclose assumed that the lender was entitled to base the security for the loan on the projected increase in market value of the collateral rather than the borrower’s ability to pay. The court allowed the claim to go forward even though the loans at issue did not constitute predatory loans as defined by state law.

Same sex marriage

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

Hawai’i came close to recognizing same-sex marriages in a 1993 decision called Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 59 (Haw. 1993), in which the court held that denying individuals the freedom to marry others of the same sex presumptively constituted sex discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Hawai’i Constitution. However, that route is now closed by a state constitutional amendment. Haw. Const. art. 1, §23. A similar decision in Alaska, Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1998), was similarly preempted by constitutional amendment. S.J. Res. 42, 20th Leg., 2d Legis. Sess. (Alaska 1998) (passed Nov. 3, 1998). The Supreme Court of Vermont held, in Baker v. State of Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999), that the “common benefits” provision of the Vermont Constitution requires the state to grant same-sex couples the legal incidents of marriage, whether or not the state …

Same sex marriage Read More »

Restraints on alienation

/ Restraints on Alienation, Servitudes

A Connecticut trial court held a right of first refusal invalid as an unreasonable restraint on alienation when it could be exercised either by the homeowners association or by any individual homeowner when there was no mechanism to determine who could exercise the right if more than one person sought to buy the property. Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Ass’n of Stratford, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2765 (Super Ct. 2002).

A property story from the painter Sandro Botticelli

/ Nuisance

Another time a cloth-weaver came to live in a house next to Sandro [Boticcelli’s], and erected no fewer than eight looms, which, when at work, not only deafened poor Sandro with the noise of the treadles and the movement of the frames, but shook his whole house, the walls of which were no stronger than they should be, so that what with the one thing and the other he could not work or even stay home. Time after time he besought his neighbor to put an end to this annoyance, but the other said that he both would and could do what he pleased in his own house; whereupon Sandro, in disdain, balanced on the top of his own wall, which was higher than his neighbor’s and not very strong, an enormous stone, more than enough to fill a wagon, which threatened to fall at the slightest shaking of the …

A property story from the painter Sandro Botticelli Read More »

Scroll to Top