1994 WL 236287 (1994)
The barn was located partially on the lot in which the remainderman had an interest and partially on a lot owned by the life estate holder and her son. The barn was in disrepair and the life estate holder proposed to tear it down. The remainderman filed a complaint against both the life estate holder and her son, but later dismissed the claims against the son.
The trial court denied the injunction but ordered the value of the barn paid to the remainderman if it was torn down.
- The court found that an injunction was an available remedy to prevent an action of waste.
- The court found that waste was an abuse or destructive use of property.
- The court found that the removal of the barn would actually improve the value of the property, so its removal did not constitute waste.
- The court found that paying the value of the barn to the remainderman would compensate her for its removal and did not justify waste, since the removal of the barn was not a waste of the property.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.