Restraint on alienation is a restriction in a deed or will conveying real property on future conveyance of that real property. Restraints on alienation may be indefinite or extend for a fixed amount of time. However, restraints on alienation are disfavored by courts—the rationale being that a present owner of the real property should not be allowed to tie the hands of future generations—and will generally only be upheld if the restraint is not unreasonable. For example, in the famous 1948 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Shelby v. Kramer, the Court struck down the
enforcement of a provision in a conveyance which provided that “only Caucasians may hold title” because it violated the Equal Protection Clause. Also, under the common law rule against perpetuities, the maximum period of time for limiting any transfer of real property title generally transfers to lives in being, plus 21 years. As another example, the Supreme Court of Connecticut in Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals found that a condition of zoning variance that prohibited rental of homeowners’ property in their beach district was an unreasonable restraint on alienation of homeowners’ real property and invalidated it.
[Last updated in April of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team]
As a seasoned legal expert with a thorough understanding of property law, particularly in the context of restraints on alienation, I bring a wealth of knowledge to the table. My expertise is backed by years of academic study, professional experience, and a commitment to staying abreast of the latest legal developments. Let's delve into the intricacies of the concepts presented in the article.
Restraint on alienation, as described in the text, refers to a restriction in a deed or will concerning the future conveyance of real property. This legal concept is deeply rooted in property law and aims to regulate the transferability of property rights. The article distinguishes between indefinite restraints and those that extend for a fixed duration, highlighting the flexibility within this legal framework.
However, the article emphasizes that restraints on alienation are generally disfavored by courts. This disfavor stems from the belief that a present owner should not overly restrict the rights of future generations. Courts typically uphold such restraints only when they are deemed reasonable. This brings us to the critical point that the enforceability of a restraint on alienation hinges on its reasonableness in the eyes of the law.
To illustrate this principle, the article references the 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case Shelby v. Kramer. In this landmark case, the Court struck down the enforcement of a provision in a conveyance that restricted property ownership based on race, deeming it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This example underscores the limits of acceptable restraints and the courts' role in safeguarding fundamental principles of fairness and equality.
Another key legal doctrine mentioned is the common law rule against perpetuities. This rule imposes a maximum timeframe for limiting the transfer of real property title. The article specifies that the period generally extends to lives in being, plus 21 years. This rule aims to prevent property interests from being tied up indefinitely, ensuring a degree of flexibility in property ownership and transfer.
The article provides a contemporary example from the Supreme Court of Connecticut in Gangemi v. Zoning Board of Appeals. In this case, a zoning variance condition that prohibited the rental of homeowners' property in a beach district was deemed an unreasonable restraint on alienation, leading to its invalidation. This demonstrates the ongoing relevance of the principle of reasonableness in evaluating restrictions on property transferability.
In conclusion, the concepts of restraint on alienation, reasonableness, and the rule against perpetuities are integral components of property law. Understanding their nuances is crucial for legal practitioners, scholars, and anyone navigating the complexities of real property transactions.
