Ink v. City of Canton case brief summary
212 N.E.2d 574 (1965)
CASE FACTS
After plaintiff grantors conveyed a tract of land by deed to defendant city for the express purpose of using the land as a city park, defendant improved and developed the land as a public park in accordance with the deeds. When the state instituted eminent domain proceedings to appropriate much of the park land, a trial court awarded the proceeds from the condemnation to defendant, holding that the state's appropriation did not constitute a breach by defendant of the restrictive deeds or a forfeiture of the remainder of the grant. The court of appeals affirmed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the decision of the appellate court affirming the trial court's order awarding condemnation proceeds to defendant city because defendant was a fiduciary with respect to implementation of plaintiff grantors' grant of park land. Thus, any amount received in the condemnation proceeding that was not required by defendant for continued park purposes reverted to plaintiffs.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
212 N.E.2d 574 (1965)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff grantors sought review of the
decision of the Court of Appeals for Stark County (Ohio), which
affirmed a trial court's decision awarding condemnation proceeds to
defendant city upon the state's eminent domain taking of land that
plaintiffs had conveyed to defendant with specific restrictions for
its use.CASE FACTS
After plaintiff grantors conveyed a tract of land by deed to defendant city for the express purpose of using the land as a city park, defendant improved and developed the land as a public park in accordance with the deeds. When the state instituted eminent domain proceedings to appropriate much of the park land, a trial court awarded the proceeds from the condemnation to defendant, holding that the state's appropriation did not constitute a breach by defendant of the restrictive deeds or a forfeiture of the remainder of the grant. The court of appeals affirmed.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court reversed and held that, by accepting the grant, defendant undertook a fiduciary obligation to use the property only for park purposes.
- Thus, defendant was required to hold any interests in the property not taken from it subject to the fiduciary obligations imposed upon it by the two deeds conveying that property to it.
- In addition, whatever money defendant received in the eminent domain proceedings could only be held by defendant so long as it proposed to use, could reasonably use, and did use that money for park purposes, and any remaining money should have reverted to plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the decision of the appellate court affirming the trial court's order awarding condemnation proceeds to defendant city because defendant was a fiduciary with respect to implementation of plaintiff grantors' grant of park land. Thus, any amount received in the condemnation proceeding that was not required by defendant for continued park purposes reverted to plaintiffs.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment