Propery reverts to original owners when school closes

Part of John's [great-grandfather's] estate was "taken for school purposes," which we did know about. There is a sign in front of the school thanking my ancestor, John. I always thought that was strange, considering most imminent domain properties don't acknowledge the previous owners! It turns out it was there for a reason. What we didn't know because the corrupt relatives handled everything: the property had a clause stating that if the school was ever closed, it reverted to the heirs of the estate.

. . . Even if new trustees were appointed, they would be compelled to operate and maintain the park as to Whites and Negroes on a non-discriminatory basis which would be contrary to and in violation of the specific purpose of the trust property as provided in the will of Senator Bacon. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the sole purpose for which the trust was created has become impossible of accomplishment and has been terminated. (See Restatement (Second), Trusts 335. 'Where a trust is expressly created . . . [and] fail[s] from any cause, a resulting trust is implied for the benefit of the grantor, or testator, or his heirs.' Code 108-106 (4)).

The Baconsfield trust "failed" under that law not because of any belief on the part of any living person that whites and Negroes might not enjoy being together but, rather, because Senator Bacon who died many years ago intended that the park remain forever for the exclusive use of white people.

This is an appeal from the grant of Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment, involving the interpretation of a 1908 Deed, which created a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter. Finding that the reversionary language was triggered upon the property ceasing to be used as a classroom facility, we reverse and grant summary judgment to the non-moving Appellants. . . .

The Deed reads, in relevant part as follows:

For and in consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00) and the interest I have for the education of the children of my neighborhood and community generally, provided however, the same is to be devoted exclusively to the cause of education, I Geo. W. Haley and wife, and when said property is abandoned for school purposes said land reverts to said Haley or his heirs or representatives, have bargained and sold, and by these presents do transfer and convey unto the said The Davidson County Board of Education, J. Taylor Stratton, Chairman, and their successors in office, a certain tract or parcel of land in Davidson County, State of Tennessee...

. . . There is no dispute of material fact in this case. Union Hill Elementary School closed as a classroom facility on or about July 13, 2000. It is also clear that the July 20, 1908 Deed creates a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter. The pivotal question here is whether use of this Property for storage of kitchen equipment encompasses “school purposes” when read in light of Mr. Haley’s intent that the Property be devoted “exclusively to the cause of education,” and in light of his stated interest, in conveying the Property, to provide “for the education of the children of [his] neighborhood.”

. . . Since it is the intention of the donor that drives the interpretation of deeds, we find that Mr. Haley’s intention in conveying this Property to Davidson County was served only by the Property’s use as a classroom facility. When the process of “education,” as defined in its usual, natural, and ordinary meaning by the sources supra, ceased at the Union Hill Elementary School on or about July 13, 2000, the Property was “abandoned for school purposes,” at least to the extent that Mr. Haley
intended. . . .

. . . As noted, supra, the Deed in this case creates a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter. In a determinable fee, upon the happening of the condition, the grantee’s estate automatically terminates and the entire fee simple title reverts to the grantors or their heirs. Williamson v. Grizzard, 387 S.W.2d 807, 809 (Tenn. 1965). Unlike a fee simple on a condition subsequent, which requires some act of re-entry on the part of the grantors or their heirs in order to re-vest title in the grantors or their heirs, Atkins v. Gillespie, 299 S.W. 776 (Tenn. 1927, no such action was required on the part of Mr. Haley’s heirs in the instant case because this is a fee simple determinable. As discussed, supra, we find that the triggering event for the reversion occurred upon the Property ceasing to be used as a classroom. Because this is a fee simple determinable, the reversion was automatic and title vested
in the heirs of Mr. Haley at that time. Accordingly, any post-judgment facts concerning any future use of the Property by Davidson County are moot.

I found out by pure luck when I randomly mentioned the school and told our realtor that it was my ancestor. It turns out our realtor is on the school board, and she told me that she knew of a clause because the school had just closed. She said they had discussed the reversion of the property in meetings and that the county had been trying to find a way to keep the land. She then recommended that I look into. I started researching with the county and never found anything, so I thought maybe she misunderstood.

I just today checked some records through our county court's online records... It shows a newly posted, closed case with the plaintiff as the school district and the defendants as John's estate. According to the dockets, the school filed to be allowed to keep the land in April. Even though my realtor had told me they knew about the reverting to the family, not one word of that is mentioned in the court papers. In fact, they stress that it is just a formality because they can't find the original title.

None of the living heirs was contacted, although for some reason, they sent letters to a handful of dead, distant cousins, who weren't heirs as a technicality. I have researched my family genealogy, and know that the people they attempted to contact have been dead for at least 70 years. They also sent letters to heirs of those dead descendents who were in no way part of the estate. Yet, while they contacted these people, they never even tried to contact the actual heirs until after the judgement was final, though they used "publication." I can search the probate records online and see that the heirs, and their current addresses are available. John's will shows my Grandmother, as well as updated information until her death 1997. Her will is also accessible, showing her heirs. They only sent one letter towards the heirs, after the judgement was final. The docket shows that a registered letter mailed to "John" (who died in 1918) and was undeliverable (in 2005!) and his estate's heirs were unknown. I find this a little strange, as I specifically told a member of the school board that it was my ancestors' property.

You have no knowledge (you are only speculating) that the land was taken for public use through an eminent domain proceeding. If it had been taken, the record owner (your ancestor) would have been paid just compensation and the land would belong to the public school district

Quote:

True, this is just based on what the board member told me. However, the survey the school used as "proof" states across the top "proposed to be taken for school purposes." "Proposed" is a key word, although I have no doubt they did purchase the land. But, when I type "taken for school purposes" into legal definition web sites, I find that wording refers to old rural laws designed to put ancestral farm land back in the family. I find court cases from many different states where land "taken for school purposes" reverted. I think there is a pretty good chance that ours is not an exception.

Does an attorney have the conduct the title search or can I go to the courthouse myself? It's not a big deal, but I don't want to send my dad and aunt on a wild goose chase if I can simply go look at the title
and save us all a lot of time and hassle. I've spent a fair amount of time doing genealogy work anyway and enjoy it. In fact, I have signed into the genealogy room many times indicating that I am researching these particular ancestors.

I agree that the fact that a school board member had first hand knowledge of my connection to the family is significant. I don't want to claim that she willfully withheld information so the school could keep the land, but at the same time... surely she knew that the school was pretending to find the heirs (and hoping not to!)

Here's another question based on the possibility of finding the title and it clearly showing that the land reverts... The school had to have known about it, thus the hurry to quiet the title when the school closed, yet it is not mentioned in the court records, and they rely on a survey proposal to claim the right to the land. Does the fact that they didn't inform the judge help our case in proving they willfully tried not to contact the heirs, and that they avoided disclosing the truth in their attempts to keep the land?

Also, is the short time span normal? When my grandmother died, her estate was processing for about three years, so I think its odd that the county only allowed three months for a final judgement and five total to process the land to the county.

Given that a million bucks is at issue, why try to economize on a title search that will cost you only a few hundred dollars?

1. Eminent Domain--Nature of Title Acquired.
As a general rule the appropriation of land under power of eminent domain does not give a fee-simple title in the absence of a statute to that effect, but only a right to use and occupy the land for the purpose for which it was taken.

2. Same--Condemnation of Land for School Purposes.
Where an independent school district, under section 6321, C. O. S. 1921, condemns land for school purposes, in the absence of a showing that a fee-simple title is necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the land was condemned, no such title will pass under the proceedings; but the school district will take only a qualified or terminable fee, and when it ceases to use the premises for the purpose for which they were taken, the title thereto will revert to the original owner.

Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order

. . .

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc.
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. . . .

(No advice, but reading with interest. Quite a mystery, and I'm curious how it will turn out. Looks like you've been doing some great detective work, and you're writing about it very well, too.)

We have had a family mystery for years concerning what exactly happened to the family land. My grandmother always talked about being cheated out of her inheritance, saying that the executor took almost everything. I have researched this family line pretty far back as far as names, but I've never had the time to get into following land transfers, court cases, etc.. I am finally figuring out what happened. Not only am I finding some interesting details on this particular case, but I've found a lot about where the other land went as well. Though the executor fought to keep the school from appropriating the land in trust, he ended up keeping most of the rest of it. I am sorry to say that his heirs still hold the land that was willed to my great grandfather.

Because this claim is in equity, the statute of limitations may not apply. Syllabus Point 3 of Rodgers v. Rodgers, 184 W. Va. 82, 399 S.E.2d 664 (1990), states: "'Statutes of limitations are not applicable in equity to subjects of exclusively equitable cognizance. Matters pertaining to fiduciary relationships come within the rule.' Syllabus Point 3, Felsenheld v. Bloch Bros. Tobacco Co., 119 W. Va. 167, 192 S.E. 545, 123 A.L.R. 334 (1937)." While there is a substantial conflict among jurisdictions, in absence of a specific statute of limitations, West Virginia firmly is committed to the rule that statutes of limitations do not apply to claims exclusively of an equitable nature. Depue v. Miller, 65 W. Va. 120, 64 S.E. 740 (1909). It is unquestionable that a constructive or resulting trust is a typical remedy available in equity. Thus, the equitable doctrine that permits a resulting or constructive trust,(17) when properly invoked, estops the opposition from relying on a general statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

Technically, constructive trusts are not trusts at all, but equitable devices employed by courts of equity. Schultz v. Schultz , 637 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 1982). They arise "by operation of law, or, more accurately, by construction of the court, regardless and independently of any actual or presumed intention of the parties to create a trust[.]" Id . (internal quotation marks omitted). "The constructive trust may be defined as the device used by chancery to compel one who unfairly holds a property interest to convey that interest to another to whom it justly belongs." Kerber v. Rowe , 156 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Mo. 1941) (internal quotation marks omitted). "In a constructive trust the beneficial interest in the property is from the beginning in the person who has been wronged. The constructive trust arises from the situation in which he is entitled to the remedy of restitution, and it arises as soon as that situation is created." Page v. Joplin Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. , 255 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Mo. 1953) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

Thus a court of equity may impose or declare a constructive trust to provide a remedy in cases where one who "'has acquired property under such circumstances as make it inequitable for him to retain it'" by making him or her a trustee for the person or persons injured thereby. Schultz , 637 S.W.2d at 4. In doing so, the court merely uses the machinery of a trust as a remedial device, even though the actual mechanism used to do so is, in strict contemplation of the law, not a trust. Id . "One of the most frequently quoted statements is Mr. Justice Cardozo's: 'A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.'" Lucas v. Cent. Mo. Trust Co. , 166 S.W.2d 1053, 1058 (Mo. 1942) (quoting Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 122 N.E. 378, 380 (N.Y. 1919)).

From what I understand, your great-grandfather died before he came of age but left a wife and child (your grandmother). Your grandmother then replaced your great-grandfather after his death as the beneficial heir of substantial land holdings held in trust.

As for land that was sold long ago to bona fide purchasers in good faith, it is far too late to do anything. If fraud occurred with respect to land that the executor sold that should have went to your grandmother, it occurred long ago. It is almost always impossible to recover land from bona fide purchasers in good faith and it is too late to sue the executor or the executor's estate for fraud with respect to land that is long gone.

In reference to the other idea regarding the land that was sold, I went searching our recorders records online and found where the executor's last heir (said little old lady) sold the land with the home when her dad died just a few years ago. I was thinking, since the appropriated school land never had a deed, maybe the rest of the farm never had a current deed either. It turns out that when she went to sell the land, it had no deed. (Other than the last official one from my great-great grandfather before it was put into trust.) She had a new survey done to divide the homeland into three tracts, and the record shows that she had to file an "aid of title affidavit" to claim the land before it could be sold in 2000.