michael zwingli
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Other
Hello to all forum members. I am new to this forum, and in fact, to online fora in general, so that I don't know what I can expect here...
I decided to come here to open a discussion on a legal topic which has become of interest to me lately. Said topic is that of estates in land/real property. My interest is in land interests held in other than "fee simple", particularly those which might restrict the divisibility and alienability of the real estate, and also provide a measure of immunity from liability to the normal operation of law. I would like to open what will hopefully be a rich and often theoretical discussion with the following question: Why has the "fee tail" estate in land been abolished within most (if not all) jurisdictions in the United States? What are the foundational justifications for such abolition? Are such abolitions based upon the lack of a "monarch" from which such a fee might originate? If so, could not the individual state government act as the "monarch" within such a trust? Otherwise, is the restriction imposed by the entailment of the property seen as a violation of the property rights of the heirs of the originator of the estate? Or, rather, are there other justifications which have been advanced for the abolitions of the fee tail within the various states of the U.S.?
I would be very interested to have the opinions of all of you upon this issue. Also, if any of the members might indicate written materials, landmark cases, legal challenges, or any other materials from the literature which touch upon this topic it will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
I decided to come here to open a discussion on a legal topic which has become of interest to me lately. Said topic is that of estates in land/real property. My interest is in land interests held in other than "fee simple", particularly those which might restrict the divisibility and alienability of the real estate, and also provide a measure of immunity from liability to the normal operation of law. I would like to open what will hopefully be a rich and often theoretical discussion with the following question: Why has the "fee tail" estate in land been abolished within most (if not all) jurisdictions in the United States? What are the foundational justifications for such abolition? Are such abolitions based upon the lack of a "monarch" from which such a fee might originate? If so, could not the individual state government act as the "monarch" within such a trust? Otherwise, is the restriction imposed by the entailment of the property seen as a violation of the property rights of the heirs of the originator of the estate? Or, rather, are there other justifications which have been advanced for the abolitions of the fee tail within the various states of the U.S.?
I would be very interested to have the opinions of all of you upon this issue. Also, if any of the members might indicate written materials, landmark cases, legal challenges, or any other materials from the literature which touch upon this topic it will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.