Also known as: waste · wastes · wasting · waste doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal principle that prohibits the holder of a present possessory interest in land from using the property in a manner that unreasonably harms the interests of the holder of a future interest. The doctrine applies when the present holder's acts substantially reduce the value of the future interest and are unreasonable under the circumstances. It covers voluntary acts that damage the premises, neglect that allows deterioration, and in some cases changes that alter the character of the property.
Dominic Drake holds a life estate in wooded acreage with Destiny Davis holding the remainder. Dominic cuts and sells mature timber without consent. The removal substantially reduces the land's value for Destiny. The doctrine of waste supplies Destiny a claim for damages because the act harms the future interest.
Dawson Steel leases a warehouse to Danielle Dixon for a ten-year term. The roof develops leaks from ordinary wear. Danielle ignores repeated repair requests and the interior suffers water damage. The doctrine of waste allows the landlord to recover because neglect caused preventable harm to the reversion.
Deborah Dunn holds a fee tail estate preserved for a single lifetime. She extracts minerals from the land without regard for the future interest. The extraction reduces the property's long-term productivity. The doctrine of waste limits her privilege and exposes her to liability for the resulting harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Diana Delgado mortgages Blackacre to Dynamic Solutions. While in possession she cuts all merchantable timber and sells it. The removal impairs the land's value as security. The doctrine of waste gives the mortgagee remedies including damages and an injunction to protect its interest.
Dwight Dorsey holds a life estate with Davenport Pharmaceuticals holding the remainder. The farmhouse roof leaks and Dwight takes no action to repair it. The structure deteriorates over several seasons. The doctrine of waste supports a claim because the omission caused unreasonable harm to the future interest.
Decker Electronics holds mortgaged property when an earthquake damages the building. The company makes no repairs despite having the resources. The unrepaired damage reduces the property's value below the mortgage balance. The doctrine of waste does not apply because the initial harm was not caused by the mortgagor.
The doctrine recognizes voluntary waste from intentional or negligent affirmative acts that damage the premises. It also covers permissive waste from neglect or failure to make reasonable repairs. Ameliorative waste arises when changes improve the property but still alter its character in a way that harms the future interest.
Any holder of a future interest may sue when the present holder's conduct substantially reduces the value of that interest and is unreasonable. This includes remaindermen after a life estate and landlords after a lease term. Mortgagees may also sue when waste impairs their security interest.
Modern law extends the doctrine to the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship. A mortgagor has a duty to protect the property's value as security even without an express covenant. Failure to repair or payment of taxes can constitute waste when it impairs the mortgagee's interest.
A successful claimant may obtain damages measured by the reduction in value or the cost of repair. An injunction may issue to prevent ongoing or threatened waste. In mortgage cases the mortgagee may also foreclose or seek appointment of a receiver.
…Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple's Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion—after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence—the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that…