{"id":809,"date":"2024-06-16T17:02:21","date_gmt":"2024-06-16T17:02:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=809"},"modified":"2024-06-16T17:02:21","modified_gmt":"2024-06-16T17:02:21","slug":"interpreting-estates-in-land-presumption-against-forfeitures-or-grantors-intent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2024\/06\/16\/interpreting-estates-in-land-presumption-against-forfeitures-or-grantors-intent\/","title":{"rendered":"Interpreting estates in land: presumption against forfeitures or grantor\u2019s intent"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Traditionally, courts adopt a \u201cpresumption against forfeitures\u201d so that an ambiguous conveyance will not be interpreted to create a future interest. Many courts still retain this interpretive presumption which is not focused on the probably intent of the grantor but on the public policy goal of promoting the alienability of land and freeing current owners from forfeiture of their title. See, e.g., &nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/carter-country-club-inc-v-carter-cmty-bldg-assn\">Carter Country Club, Inc. v. Carter Comty. Bldg. Ass\u2019n,<\/a> 273 A.3d 915 (N.H. 2021) (\u201c\u201cWe generally disfavor interpreting deed conditions in a manner that would cause a forfeiture of the property upon breach of such conditions.\u201d). But see id. (\u201cHowever, we adhere to the guiding principle that the intent of the parties should be effectuated whenever possible.\u201d). But other courts focus on effectuating the grantor\u2019s intent even if that results in a future interest and a forfeiture of the present estate in land. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mdcourts.gov\/data\/opinions\/coa\/2023\/28a22.pdf\" class=\"mtli_attachment mtli_pdf\">Bd. of Cnty. Comm\u2019rs of St. Mary\u2019s County v. Aiken<\/a>, 296 A.3d 933 (Md. 2023) (\u201cTo determine the \u201cextent of an estate or interest granted by a deed,\u201d we construe the deed \u201cso as to best effectuate the intention of the parties.\u201d).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Traditionally, courts adopt a \u201cpresumption against forfeitures\u201d so that an ambiguous conveyance will not be interpreted to create a future interest. Many courts still retain this interpretive presumption which is not focused on the probably intent of the grantor but on the public policy goal of promoting the alienability of land and freeing current owners from forfeiture of their title. See, e.g., &nbsp;Carter Country Club, Inc. v. Carter Comty. Bldg. Ass\u2019n, 273 A.3d 915 (N.H. 2021) (\u201c\u201cWe generally disfavor interpreting deed conditions in a manner that would cause a forfeiture of the property upon breach of such conditions.\u201d). But see id. (\u201cHowever, we adhere to the guiding principle that the intent of the parties should be effectuated whenever possible.\u201d). But other courts focus on effectuating the grantor\u2019s intent even if that results in a future interest and a forfeiture of the present estate in land. Bd. of Cnty. Comm\u2019rs of &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2024\/06\/16\/interpreting-estates-in-land-presumption-against-forfeitures-or-grantors-intent\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Interpreting estates in land: presumption against forfeitures or grantor\u2019s intent<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-estates-and-future-interests"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}