Brokaw v. Fairchild case brief

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

FACTS
-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 circumstances – Melms 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.