A mother, desiring to ensure her family farm remains in agricultural use, conveys the land by deed to her son 'so long as the land is used for farming; otherwise, it shall revert to me.' Several years later, the son builds a shopping center on the property, violating the condition. Before the mother can take legal action, she passes away, and her will leaves all her property to her daughter. Who has the best claim to ownership of the property under these circumstances?
The son, because he owns the land in fee simple absolute after the mother’s death extinguished her interest.
The son, as his ownership is not affected by the mother’s death and violations of the farming condition require court intervention for enforcement.
The daughter, as she inherited her mother’s possibility of reverter when her mother died, and the violation of the farming condition triggered the reverter.
The daughter, because the violation of the farming condition allowed her to exercise a power of termination.
The deed created a fee simple determinable, a type of defeasible fee, giving the son ownership while the land is used for farming. If the condition is broken, a possibility of reverter is triggered, and possession automatically reverts to the grantor or their heirs. Here, the mother’s death does not extinguish her retained possibility of reverter, and under the will, the daughter inherits that interest. The son’s development of a shopping center triggered the reverter, and ownership now lies with the daughter. Other answers incorrectly assess the type of interest or ignore the automatic nature of reversion.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is a possibility of reverter?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between a fee simple determinable and a fee simple absolute?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What happens to a property with a condition if the original owner dies?