Restraint On Alienation

86 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. DE LA Cuesta
  458 U.S. 141· U.S.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 727×
  The Federal Home Loan Bank Board exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a regulation that preempted state law regarding the enforceability of due-on-sale clauses in mortgages.
• United States v. Arnold
  388 U.S. 365· U.S.· 1967-06-12 ·cited 689×
  The Court held that Schwinn's marketing system, when involving sales to wholesalers and dealers, was per se illegal under the antitrust laws, despite its success in enhancing competition.
• United States v. Mitchell
  445 U.S. 535· U.S.· 1980-04-15 ·cited 511×
  The General Allotment Act of 1887 can be interpreted as mandating compensation from the Federal Government for damages sustained due to breaches of fiduciary duties in managing allotted timber lands.
• South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke
  467 U.S. 82· U.S.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 154×
• Palmer v. Chamberlin
  191 F.2d 532· 5th Cir.· 1951-09-12 ·cited 79×
  A by-law that allows directors to purchase stock from deceased shareholders at a price determined by themselves, especially when they are also beneficiaries of the trust created by the by-law, is against public policy and unenforceable.
• Brown v. Avemco Inv. Corp.
  603 F.2d 1367· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-12 ·cited 76×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion improperly reversed the lower court's decision by considering issues not properly raised on appeal and by disregarding the requirements of Rule 51, FRCivP, regarding timely objections to jury instructions.
• First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Englewood v. Lockwood
  385 So. 2d 156· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-06-25 ·cited 41×
  First Federal Savings and Loan Association sought to foreclose on a mortgage after the borrower sold the property without consent in violation of a due-on-sale clause. The Florida appellate court held that a federal savings and loan association seeking foreclosure in state court
• GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Cont'l T. V., Inc.
  537 F.2d 980· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that manufacturer-imposed territorial restrictions on the resale of products by independent dealers are per se illegal under the Sherman Act. Such restrictions are deemed "obviously destructive" of intrabrand competition, and courts are not equipped to balance this
• Addie C. Richardson v. Holman
  160 Fla. 65· Fla.· 1948-01-20 ·cited 40×
  In this property law case, the Florida Supreme Court held that a deed reservation containing automatic reverter language creates a fee simple determinable with an assignable possibility of reverter, which the grantor could convey to subsequent grantees. The court reversed a lower
• Davis v. Geyer
  151 Fla. 362· Fla.· 1942-09-29 ·cited 33×
  This case addresses whether a provision in an agreement restricting the sale of real property without the approval of another party is void as an unlawful restraint on alienation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision vacating the restrictive provision, ho
• Belle Brickell and Maude E. Brickell v. DiPietro
  145 Fla. 23· Fla.· 1940-10-08 ·cited 24×
  This case concerns whether Mary Brickell's will created an irrevocable trust for maintaining a home for her unmarried children, or whether the beneficiaries could terminate the arrangement and convey the property by mutual consent. The Florida Supreme Court held that no trust was
• City OF Huntingburg v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  498 F.2d 778· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission failed to adequately explain its reasoning for accepting an interconnection agreement with potentially anticompetitive provisions, necessitating a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Eastman
  118 F.2d 421· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-10 ·cited 20×
  The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to condition the sale of timber on trust-allotted Indian lands through regulations, and the court cannot substitute its judgment for the Secretary's policy decisions.
• Ned McDANIEL v. Painter
  418 F.2d 545· 10th Cir.· 1969-12-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that majority stockholders are not fiduciaries for minority stockholders merely by virtue of stock ownership, and absent fraud or mismanagement, a sale of controlling stock at a premium is permissible.
• Hundley et ux. v. Gorewitz
  132 F.2d 23· D.C. Cir.· 1942-12-14 ·cited 18×
• Robinson v. Randolph
  21 Fla. 629· Fla.· 1885-06-01 ·cited 17×
  This case addresses the proper construction of a testamentary devise of land to a daughter and whether restraints on alienation are valid. The Florida Supreme Court held that the testator intended to convey a fee simple estate to his daughter through the use of the word 'property
• Williams v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Arlington
  651 F.2d 910· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 16×
  Due-on-sale clauses in deeds of trust are enforceable when triggered by a sale or transfer of the property, even if structured through a land trust, and are not considered an invalid restraint on alienation under Virginia law.
• Mays v. Burgess
  147 F.2d 869· D.C. Cir.· 1945-01-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a restrictive covenant against selling property to Negroes, made by contract among landowners, is not enforceable in equity against a subsequent owner who was not a party to the contract, especially given changed neighborhood conditions and housing emergency.
• M. Witmark & Sons v. Fred Fisher Music Co., Inc.
  125 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1942-02-11 ·cited 16×
  A copyright holder may assign their expectancy of the renewal right, as the statute does not explicitly forbid such assignments.
• Pincus v. Pabst Brewing Co.
  893 F.2d 1544· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the right of first refusal was validly supported by consideration and triggered by Pabst's expression of intent to accept Armak's offer, but the damages awarded were excessive.
• Johnson v. Girtman
  542 So. 2d 1033· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-11 ·cited 14×
  Lee Johnson appealed a judgment enforcing a 1946 family contract requiring the Girtman children to devise their property interests only to their heirs or to each other. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the contract was a valid and enforceable agreement to make a
• Blair v. Kingsley
  128 So. 2d 889· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-04-21 ·cited 14×
  A restrictive covenant granting the grantor a first right of refusal to repurchase property within a specified period is a valid and enforceable restraint on alienation.
• Lyons v. King
  397 So. 2d 964· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-04-15 ·cited 12×
  Prospective condominium purchasers appealed a trial court judgment upholding a condominium association's rejection of their purchase application. The association had contractual authority to approve or disapprove purchasers and, upon disapproval, provide an alternative purchaser
• Points v. Barnes
  301 So. 2d 102· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-10-04 ·cited 12×
  This case involves two agreements between F. M. Points and Ann Barnes. The appellate court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that one agreement, a right of first refusal, did not violate the Rule against Perpetuities because it was personal to the appellant. The court al
• Martin v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc.
  285 F.2d 619· 7th Cir.· 1961-01-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the corporation's option to repurchase stock from a resigning employee was valid and enforceable, and that the voting trusts were also lawful.
• Sears v. Franchise Fin. Corp. OF Am.
  711 So. 2d 1189· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-04-24 ·cited 10×
  Sears appealed a summary judgment that voided a condition in a nonexclusive easement requiring the adjacent property owner to sweep Sears' parking area. The court reversed, holding that section 689.18's forfeiture provision limitations do not apply to easements because easements
• Woodcrest Apts., Ltd. v. IPA Realty P'rs Richardson Palmer
  397 So. 2d 364· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a mortgage clause assigning rents, issues, and profits upon default, which also states acceleration if the mortgagor assigns these without consent, does not permit acceleration upon a sale of the property itself, especially when the lender's security is not im
• In re the Owners of "SW 8" Real Est. v. McQUAID
  513 F.2d 558· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-14 ·cited 10×
• Holiday OUT IN Am. AT ST. Lucie, Inc. v. Bowes
  285 So. 2d 63· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-11-16 ·cited 10×
  A dissenting opinion argues that a provision granting a developer exclusive rental rights for condominium units is an undue restriction on the use of property and repugnant to fee simple ownership, despite the condominium concept.
• Ugent v. Boehmke
  123 So. 2d 387· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The court upheld enforcement of a 1953 joint and mutual will as a binding contract between spouses, allowing a third-party beneficiary to enforce the will's provisions against the surviving spouse's attempt to modify it. The case establishes that joint and mutual wills can consti
• Hurd v. Hodge
  162 F.2d 233· D.C. Cir.· 1947-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that racial restrictive covenants are void and unenforceable by injunction because their enforcement constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
• Brown v. Rice
  716 So. 2d 807· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-07-24 ·cited 9×
  A condominium unit owner conveyed the exclusive use of a limited common element (garage) to another unit owner through a quit claim deed. The court held that Florida Statute § 718.107(2) prohibits the conveyance of common elements or limited common elements separately from their
• Camino Gardens Ass'n, Inc. v. McKIM
  612 So. 2d 636· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-01-13 ·cited 8×
  A homeowner's association sued to void property deeds and enforce restrictive covenants that prohibited property transfers to non-members. The court upheld summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the association's membership-requirement restriction and mortgage redempti
• Smith v. Moughan
  442 So. 2d 338· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-12-08 ·cited 8×
  A party may waive their right to partition by an enforceable agreement, provided the prohibition is for a reasonable and definite period and not otherwise unduly restrictive.
• United States v. MED O Farm, Inc.
  701 F.2d 88· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The FmHA may enforce the due-on-sale provision of a federal loan made under the Emergency Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act of 1978, as federal law governs such agreements.
• United States v. 397.51 Acres OF Land
  692 F.2d 688· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the brother's promise to pay a portion of the condemnation award was a personal contract not subject to the rule against perpetuities, and affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the division of the award. The court remanded the interest issue for fur
• Godley v. Ky. Res. Corp.
  640 F.2d 831· 6th Cir.· 1981-02-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that deeds were absolute conveyances, not security instruments, and that unrecorded assignments of real property interests are invalid against a buyer without notice.
• Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. The Sperry & Hutchinson Co.
  522 F.2d 1299· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the result, agreeing that the defendant failed to present evidence to avoid the application of a per se rule regarding marketing control.
• Mays v. Burgess
  152 F.2d 123· D.C. Cir.· 1945-10-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court erred by committing appellant for contempt without considering new evidence of changed neighborhood conditions and severe personal hardship.
• Welch v. Hall
  134 F.2d 366· 1st Cir.· 1943-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the personal property transferred by the decedent to her daughter was not includible in the decedent's gross estate under Section 302(c) of the Revenue Act of 1926, as amended.
• Pantry Pride Enters., Inc. v. The Stop & Shop Cos., Inc.
  806 F.2d 1227· 4th Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 7×
  A lessor's right of first refusal on a leasehold interest does not extend to equipment offered as a package deal by the lessee to a third party. The allocated price for tax purposes is not binding on the option holder.
• PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.
  597 F.2d 1090· 6th Cir.· 1979-05-04 ·cited 7×
  A statutory merger does not automatically transfer non-assignable patent license rights of a constituent corporation to the surviving corporation if the license agreement expressly prohibits assignment and transfer.
• C.F. O'Berry v. Celestine E. Gray
  510 So. 2d 1135· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-08-06 ·cited 6×
  Appellants sought to exercise a purchase option for two acres of land agreed to in 1965, exercisable upon the death of the Wilkersons. The trial court entered summary judgment for the heirs based on three grounds: inadequate property description, unconscionability, and violation
• Meyer v. Roesel
  482 So. 2d 444· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-01-08 ·cited 6×
  This case concerns the enforceability of restrictions on alienation in a 1967 patent agreement between inventor Roesel and attorney Meyer. The court held that a subsequent 1968 sale of the invention to Jebco constituted a complete transfer of ownership, converting Meyer's interes
• Jerrie Kroop v. The Caravelle Condo., Inc.
  323 So. 2d 307· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an amendment to a condominium declaration limiting unit owners to leasing their unit only once during ownership is reasonable and enforceable, and that a lease extension did not violate this amendment.
• Erwin P. Werner v. United States
  233 F.2d 52· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-31 ·cited 6×
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Sunlink Corp.
  642 So. 2d 551· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-28 ·cited 5×
  Metropolitan Dade County appealed a summary judgment declaring void a restrictive covenant that limited property transfers to AT&T affiliates. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the covenant constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation under the three-part
• Cont'l Cablevision OF NEW England, Inc. v. United Broad. Co.
  873 F.2d 717· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·cited 5×
  The court holds that the right of first refusal is valid because it was exercised within a reasonable period, not exceeding the Rule Against Perpetuities.
• 814 Prop. Holdings, LLC v. NEW Birth Baptist Church Cathedral of Faith Int'l, Inc.
  344 So. 3d 535· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-06-29 ·cited 4×
  A purchase option clause in a condominium declaration is an unreasonable restraint on alienation and therefore unenforceable when it imposes a fixed price with indefinite duration, as such terms constrain the development and marketability of the property.
• Save Calusa Tr. v. ST. Andrews Holdings, Ltd.
  193 So. 3d 910· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-01-13 ·cited 4×
  The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment that invalidated a restrictive covenant imposed by Miami-Dade County as a condition of approving a golf course development. The court held that government-imposed restrictive covenants arising from land use approvals