Casey v. Casey
700 S.W.2d 46, 287 Ark. 395, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2270 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Forfeiture restraints on the alienation of a legal fee simple interest in land are void if they are unreasonable, capricious, imposed for spite or malice, serve no worthwhile purpose, or tend to disrupt family relations, even if limited to a single transferee.
Facts:
- Fred Casey, the testator, devised the bulk of his estate to his son, Donald Casey, and $50.00 to each of six of his other seven children.
- In 1974, shortly before his death, Fred Casey added a codicil to his will.
- The codicil stipulated that Fred Casey's granddaughter, Karen Kim Casey (Donald Casey's daughter), should "never own or possess as a tenant, nor be on as a guest for more than one week per each calendar year" any of the real estate devised to Donald Casey.
- The codicil further stated that if Karen Kim Casey ever violated this condition, Donald Casey's estate in the real estate would immediately terminate, and the property would become the fee simple absolute property of Sam Casey and his heirs.
- Karen Kim Casey was 28 years old at the time of the legal dispute.
- The restriction caused Essex Exploration Company to suspend royalty payments to Donald Casey for a well drilled on the land due to the cloud on the title.
- No one at trial could explain Fred Casey's animosity toward his granddaughter, Karen Kim Casey.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Casey filed a petition in Pope County Chancery Court to remove a cloud from the title of his inherited property, seeking to have the restriction declared void.
- Appellants, who would take the property upon a violation of the restriction, challenged Donald Casey's petition.
- The trial court (Chancery Court) held the restriction was invalid as an unreasonable restraint on alienation and too vague to be enforced, ruling that Donald Casey thus held the property in fee simple absolute.
- Appellants appealed the trial court's decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a testamentary forfeiture restraint that conditions a devise of real estate upon a grandchild never owning or possessing it as a tenant, or being a guest for more than one week per year, an unreasonable restraint on alienation, thereby rendering it invalid?
Opinions:
Majority - Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice
Yes, a testamentary forfeiture restraint that conditions a devise of real estate upon a grandchild never owning or possessing it as a tenant, or being a guest for more than one week per year, is an unreasonable restraint on alienation and is therefore invalid. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding, agreeing that the restriction was an unreasonable restraint on alienation, although it found no vagueness in the restriction itself. The court explained that forfeiture restraints on the alienation of a legal fee simple interest in land are generally void, but may be upheld if they are a reasonable means of accomplishing a legal and useful purpose. Citing Restatement of Property § 406, the court noted that for such a restraint to be valid, it must be qualified, reasonable under the circumstances, and (if a forfeiture restraint) satisfy the rule against perpetuities. The court further noted that the objective sought must be of sufficient social importance to outweigh the evils of interfering with alienation, or the curtailment of alienation must be so slight that no social danger is involved. Applying factors from the Restatement (§ 406 comment i), the court concluded the restraint was unreasonable because it was capricious, appeared to be imposed for spite or malice, and served no worthwhile purpose. The restraint protected no interest the testator had in the land while living and only aimed to keep his granddaughter off the land after his death. Although limited to one person, Karen Kim Casey was a natural heir, making the restraint more significant. Furthermore, the court found the restriction created an indirect restraint on practical alienability, evidenced by the suspension of royalty payments for a well drilled on the land. Finally, the court noted that such provisions tend to disrupt or interfere with family relations, which is contrary to public policy. For these reasons, the restriction was deemed invalid.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong public policy against unreasonable restraints on the alienation of property, particularly fee simple interests. It clarifies that even seemingly minor restrictions, like limiting guest visits, can be deemed unreasonable if they are capricious, motivated by malice, or lack a legitimate purpose, especially when they disrupt family relations or create indirect practical impediments to alienability. Future cases will likely scrutinize testamentary conditions for a justifiable purpose beyond mere personal animosity, ensuring that property owners' desires do not unduly encumber the free transferability of land.
