Lexplug logoLexplug

Ogle v. Burmister

Supreme Court of Iowa
146 Iowa 33, 124 N.W. 758 (1910)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A condition in a will that grants a fee simple estate but imposes a direct and absolute restraint on the devisee's power of alienation (the ability to sell or mortgage the property) is repugnant to the nature of the estate and is therefore void.


Facts:

  • F. M. Ogle created a will disposing of his real estate.
  • The fourth paragraph of the will devised all of Ogle's real estate in Colorado and Iowa to his niece, Ida Ogle Lawyer.
  • Regarding the Iowa property, the will explicitly stated that "she is neither to sell or mortgage or neither is her heirs to sell or mortgage."
  • The fifth paragraph of the will named other relatives as residuary legatees, who would inherit any property not otherwise disposed of.
  • F. M. Ogle died, and his will was admitted to probate.

Procedural Posture:

  • The administrator of F. M. Ogle's estate filed an action in the trial court seeking a construction of Ogle's will.
  • The administrator claimed that the fourth paragraph of the will was void because it created an illegal restraint on alienation.
  • The administrator argued that because the devise to Ida Ogle Lawyer was void, the Iowa real estate should pass to the residuary legatees under the fifth paragraph of the will.
  • The trial court found in favor of Ida Ogle Lawyer, concluding that she took a fee simple estate free of the condition.
  • The administrator, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to this court.

Locked

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 clause in a will that grants a fee simple estate in land but prohibits the devisee and her heirs from ever selling or mortgaging the property create a valid and enforceable restraint on alienation?


Opinions:

Majority - Deemer, C. J.

No. A direct and absolute restraint on the alienation of a fee simple estate is void. The will's granting clause unequivocally gives Ida Ogle Lawyer a fee simple estate in the Iowa property. A condition that completely prohibits the owner of a fee simple from selling or mortgaging the property is considered repugnant to the fundamental rights associated with that estate. Such a condition is treated as a legal nullity, as it contradicts the nature of the absolute ownership conferred. The court reasoned that an obligation must have two parties, an obligor and an obligee; a restriction that benefits only the person it restricts is unenforceable. Therefore, the restrictive clause is disregarded, and the devisee, Ida Ogle Lawyer, takes the property in fee simple, free from the invalid condition against alienation.



Analysis:

This case reaffirms the foundational common law principle favoring the free alienability of property. It solidifies the rule that once a testator devises a fee simple estate, they cannot impose subsequent conditions that are fundamentally inconsistent with the rights of absolute ownership. This decision prevents grantors from exercising 'dead hand' control to indefinitely remove property from the stream of commerce. It sets a clear precedent that courts will void direct, total restraints on alienation rather than attempting to enforce the testator's inconsistent intentions, thus ensuring predictability in property law.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Ogle v. Burmister (1910) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Ogle v. Burmister