Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alby v. Banc One Financial

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 18, 2003No. 21529-6-IIIPublished

1DissentKurtz, J.

(dissenting) — The rule adopted by the majority is that a reverter clause in a deed does not violate the doctrine of restraint on alienation if the property automatically reverts back to a person or entity that can alienate the property. Additionally, the majority reasons that the clause is not a restraint on alienation because it does not absolutely prohibit transfer. As applied here, the majority’s rule means that the automatic reverter clause in the Alby to Brashler deed is not a restraint on alienation because the property automatically reverts to Susan Alby, who is free to convey the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bellingham First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. GarrisonWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Miller v. Pacific First FederalWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Richardson v. DansonWashington Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Tombari v. Blankenship-Dixon Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1978
  5. Girard v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API