METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT V. UNKNOWN HEIRS OR RIGNEY 399 P.2d 516 (1965) CASE BRIEF

METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT V. UNKNOWN HEIRS OR RIGNEY

399 P.2d 516 (1965)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Heirs (D) appealed a decision quieting the title of District (P) in a piece of real estate where in the property had been conveyed to P pursuant to a condition subsequent and P sought to acquire title to the property by adverse possession following a breach of the condition subsequent, but before the forfeiture claim.

FACTS: Rigney and his wife conveyed by deed the property in question to the Tacoma Light and Water Company, a corporation. It was to be used for the purpose of providing a right of way 'to conduct fresh water by ditch, canal, flume or other conduit for the supply of the City of Tacoma and its inhabitants.' The deed stated that if the property was not used by TLW or is successors or assigns, that Rigney or his heirs or assigned have the right of reentry and to reclaim the property. In 1905, the land was no longer used for water and was converted to a park. The Metropolitan Park District (P) was created in 1907, and succeeded the city in the management of the property as a park, with ownership being formalized in the district by deed dated March 13, 1951. In 1920, tennis courts for public use were constructed and have since been maintained upon the property, although in recent years the courts have fallen in disrepair and are rarely, if ever, used. P brought an action to quiet title in the property. Ds counterclaimed for a breach of the condition subsequent on the original conveyance. The court granted P summary judgment and quieted title in P. Ds appealed. The only questions presented for our determination are (1) whether the grantee of a fee simple estate subject to condition subsequent may acquire title by adverse possession following a breach of the condition subsequent but prior to a claim of forfeiture, and, if not, (2) whether the lapse of an extensive period of time between a breach and an election of forfeiture waives or otherwise extinguishes the condition.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner