Property Law Keyed to Dukeminier
Mountain Brow Lodge No. 82, Independent Order of Odd Fellows v. Toscano
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
The Appellant commenced an action to quiet title to a parcel of real property. The controversy between the parties centers on language in a deed of conveyance which reads “said property is restricted for the use and benefit of the second party, only; and in the even the same fails to be used by the second party or in the even to the sale or transfer by the second party of all or any part of said lot, the same is to revert to the first parties herein, their successors, heirs or assigns.” The Respondents, Toscano and other trustees of the deceased grantor (Respondents), maintain that the language creates a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent and the conveyance is valid and enforceable. The Appellant argues the restrictive language is an absolute restraint on the alienation of land and is void. The Appellant also argues if the language is not void then the reversionary clause only goes into effect if the Appellant sells or transfers the land. The trial court rendered jud gment in favor of the Respondents and the case was appealed. The appeals court determined the language of the clause was not void as the condition restraining alienation could be severed from the condition of use. The court concluded that the portion of the clause relating to land use, when construed as a whole and in light of the surrounding circumstances, created a fee subject to condition subsequent with title to revert to the grantor. The appeals court expunged the words creating restraint on alienation from the clause.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.