Friday, March 23, 2012

Brokaw v. Fairchild case brief

 Brokaw v. Fairchild, Supreme Ct., Special Term, NY County, 1929

-P has a life estate in NYC mansion, wants to tear down and make apts for income and because can't afford upkeep and taxes, can't rent as is
-P says neighborhood has changed so should be able to convert
-Ds are future interest holders who do not want house taken down, assert that to do so would be waste, and against objections of remaindermen

-life estate can do what is necessary for his use and enjoyment but can not change property so as to harm future interests
-because “my residence” in will numerous times, shows that family takes pride in home and wants to keep
change in character and circumstancesMelms v. Pabst Brewing Co.
  1. Pabst only had a life estate pur autre vie, but they knocked the house down not knowing that they only had a life estate
court found that house had no value, so remainderman got nothing.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...