Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Real Property Law
Failure to Provide Evidence That Sale of Rights Is Expedient
Hahn v. Hagar
NYLJ 7/21/17, p. 25, col. 5
AppDiv, Second Dept.
(Opinion by Connolly, J.)
In an action by life tenant and two remaindermen seeking authorization to sell the development rights to a farm, plaintiffs appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the development rights were real property but that plaintiffs had not established that selling the rights would be expedient.
The parties to the action are all siblings. Their parents left a life estate in the family's 101-acre farm to their son for life, or for so long as he used the land for farming. Upon his death, or at the time he ceased farming the land, the property and its improvements would go to the son and his three sisters in equal shares. The son and two of his sisters became interested in preserving the property as farmland by selling some of the development rights associated with the farmland or placing a conservation easement on the farm. When the third sister objected, her siblings brought this action pursuant to RPAPL 1602 seeking a judgment enabling them to sell the development rights to the farm to preserve it as a farm, or enabling them to place a conservation easement on the farm. Supreme Court dismissed the action, concluding that relief under section 1602 was unavailable because development rights are not real property within the meaning of section 1602. The life tenant and the plaintiff sisters appealed.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?