COLE v STEINLAUF Issue: Whether the 1945 deed, absent of the word heirs, conveyed full fee to from

the grantor, thus making it free from defects Holding: No, there is doubt to what the grantor meant Facts: P and D entered into contract for sale of real estate situated in Norwalk Cole was purchasing and Steinlauf was seller Contract stated that if Steinlauf couldnt convey title to premises free and clear of any defect of title, then he could reject the deed In the event of rejection all fees paid would be returned, ($420 deposit) Deed was executed to predecessor in title of Steinlauf, which assigns forever with no mention of heirs as customary in Fee Simple conveyance Cole rejected offer because it did not mention heirs and requested their deposit back, D refused.

Rule: 1. To create an estate of inheritance in land by deed, it is necessary to use the word heirs 2. Deed can be reformed to vest a fee where it can be deemed that the parties intended to convey fee. Reasoning: The 1945 conveyance was a conveyance in full fee. A grant in Connecticut that does not state "and his heirs" is uncertain enough to require an external showing of intent to grant a fee simple. Because the custom was to put "and his heirs" in the grant, there was sufficient doubt as to whether a bank would accept the title as collateral for a loan. The title could be cleared by a court of equity presenting evidence of intent, but it was not the responsibility of the Cole to take that gamble.

WHITE v BROWN Issue: Whether the wills conveyance to Mrs. White gave her a life interest or fee interest. Holding: Fee Simple Facts: Rule: -Every grant or devise of real estate shall pass all the estate unless expressly specified otherwise or necessarily implied in instrument -A will shall convey all real estate unless a contrary intention appear by its words Reasoning: Presumption is that one intends to convey property as fee simple unless it explicitly states otherwise. There is no evidence that points to the fact that she wanted to convey only a life estate, at least enough so to overcome such a strong presumption. Also, because restraint on alienation is illegal that will not be upheld DISSENT Decedent would never have added a condition that was illegal, and she clearly knew how to convey all of her property legally because she gave all of her other property to SWP. By adding that condition, it was a clear indication that only a life estate was intended. Jessie Lide dies Feb. 15th 1973 leaving holographic will Appointed niece Sandra White Perry to be executor and Evelyn White house to live in and not be sold Her two sisters quiet claimed any interest they might have in residence Lides sister and executors filed suit to obtain construction of will alleging she was vested with fee simple of the home Defendants state that only life estate was conveyed and remainder was given to them under laws on intestate succession Chancellor held that it expressly stated life estate Ordered property sold and money distributed accordingly

WOODRICK v WOOD Issue: Whether in Ohio, holder of a remainder interest in a parcel of land may prohibit the life tenant from destroying property even if it would add value to property. Holding: No Facts: Rule: 1. Under common law a life tenant could not commit waste. Anything that altered the identity of leased premises was waste, regardless of benefit or detriment. 2. Injunction is available remedy to prevent act of waste 3. For actionable waste, significant damage must occur, mere alteration which does not decrease the value is not enough Reasoning: Court held in Crocket that a woman should be able to use land she was left to pay bills. Therefore if razing the barn makes property go up, she should have right to use land to make gains. Defendant claims that 3200 is value of barn thus waste because it would lower property value. She is wrong. Wood died in 1987 and left his property to his wife but upon her death half goes to son and other half goes to daughter (Woodrick) There is barn on property of which some of the wood began to rot, Wife and Son want to raze barn, daughter files complaint Denied complaint but order them to pay her 3200, she appealed Wood argues that barn is falling down and destroying it would raise property value, also zoning wont allow horses to be housed there anymore