Legal Opinion · Dissent

Forsgren v. Sollie

Utah Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1983No. 18027Published

1DissentHowe, Justice

I dissent.

I believe this case is governed by the rule of law stated in the majority opinion that a provision in a deed specifying or limiting the use to which property is to be put does not by itself create a condition subsequent. That is exactly what we have here. There was no provision in the deed giving the grantor the right of re-entry and revesting title in her. Moreover, with regard to the use to be put to the property, all we have here is one terse sentence: “This property is conveyed to be used as and for a church or residence purposes only.” No words appear which would make a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Trustees of Union College v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Norton v. ValentineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
  3. Salt Lake City v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API