Charlotte Park and Recreation Commission v. Barringer et al.
88 S.E.2d 114, 242 N.C. 311 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A deed that conveys a fee simple determinable, which automatically terminates and reverts to the grantor upon the occurrence of a specified event, does not constitute state action, and thus, a racial limitation triggering the reversion does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Osmond L. Barringer conveyed a tract of land to the plaintiff, a municipal entity, for the creation of Revolution Park.
- The Barringer deed stipulated that the land must be used as a park, playground, and recreational area 'for the use of, and to be used and enjoyed by persons of the white race only.'
- The deed contained a reverter clause stating that if the land was not used for this exclusive purpose, title would automatically revert in fee simple to Barringer or his heirs.
- This reverter was conditioned upon Barringer or his heirs paying the plaintiff $3,500.
- Abbott Realty Company also gifted land for the park with similar use restrictions for the white race only.
- However, the reverter clause in the Abbott Realty deed was not triggered by the use of the park by non-white individuals.
- Other contiguous tracts of land were conveyed by W.T. Shore, T.C. Wilson, and the City of Charlotte to form the integral area of Revolution Park, which includes the Bonnie Brae Golf Course.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed an action for a declaratory judgment in the trial court to determine the legal effect of the reverter clauses in several deeds.
- The trial judge found that he had jurisdiction and ruled that the Barringer deed created a valid fee simple determinable.
- The trial judge concluded that if the land's use violated the racial limitation, title to the land conveyed by Barringer would revert to him.
- The trial judge also made rulings regarding the other deeds, including that the Abbott Realty deed's reverter would also be triggered.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the North Carolina 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:
Does a deed that grants land for use by a specific race only, and provides for an automatic reversion to the grantor if that condition is breached, create a valid fee simple determinable that is enforceable without violating the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, J.
Yes, a deed granting land for use by a specific race only, with an automatic reversion clause for breach, creates a valid fee simple determinable whose operation does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. This type of estate, a fee determinable upon special limitation, automatically expires upon the occurrence of the limiting event without any action required by the grantor or the courts. The court found that Barringer used clear and express words to limit the estate, providing for an automatic reverter if the land ceased to be used exclusively by the white race. The court distinguished this from the situation in Shelley v. Kraemer, reasoning that the reversion here is an automatic operation of property law based on the language of the private conveyance, not a judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant. Therefore, there is no state action involved that would trigger the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. To invalidate the reverter would be to deprive the grantor of his property rights without due process. The court also held that the Abbott Realty deed did not contain a reverter clause tied to the racial restriction, so title to that specific parcel would not revert if the golf course were integrated.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between a fee simple determinable and a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, particularly in the context of racially restrictive land use provisions. By classifying the automatic reverter as a private mechanism that operates without judicial intervention, the court carved out an exception to the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer, which prohibited state court enforcement of racist covenants. This case established that private grantors could, through careful drafting of a determinable fee, effectively enforce racial segregation on donated land because the termination of the estate was deemed a function of the original private grant, not a new act of state-sponsored discrimination. The ruling highlights how the characterization of a property interest can have significant constitutional implications.
Unlock the full brief for Charlotte Park and Recreation Commission v. Barringer et al.