Also known as: perdurably · perdurability · perpetual · enduring
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An estate or interest in land that lasts or endures indefinitely unless otherwise limited by law or agreement.
Pacific Bank grants a conservation servitude over its riverfront parcel to a land trust. Decades later the bank merges and its successor attempts to revoke the restriction. The court holds the servitude remains in force because the grant created a perdurable burden that runs with the land.
Prime Logistics forms an LLC to operate warehouses. One member dies and her heirs demand dissolution. The operating agreement is silent on duration. The court rules the LLC possesses perdurable existence and continues operating without interruption.
Phoenix Technologies creates a limited partnership to develop software. After the general partner retires the limited partners seek to wind up the entity. The court determines the partnership has perdurable duration and may continue under new management.
Progressive Healthcare incorporates without stating a termination date in its articles. Shareholders later attempt to dissolve the company after a market downturn. The court finds the corporation possesses perdurable duration by default and rejects the dissolution effort.
The city condemns waterfront land for a public park under its eminent-domain power. Former owners later claim the public use has ended and seek return of the property. The court holds the city's interest is perdurable once the taking is completed for a valid public purpose.
In the late 1990s the city of New London, Connecticut, confronted severe economic decline after the 1996 closure of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people. The city's unemployment rate stood nearly double the state average and its population had dropped below 24,000 residents from a 1970 high of 30,000. State and local officials therefore designated the Fort Trumbull peninsula for targeted economic revitalization. In 1998 the New London Development Corporation, a private nonprofit entity, was reactivated to prepare a redevelopment plan covering roughly 90 acres. The plan divided the area into seven parcels designated for a waterfront conference hotel and marinas, retail and entertainment space, research and office facilities, parking and park support, residential units, a Coast Guard museum, and additional office and retail uses. The city council formally approved the plan in January 2000 and authorized the NLDC to acquire needed parcels by purchase or, if necessary, by eminent domain. Petitioners Susette Kelo, Wilhelmina Dery, and seven other owners held fifteen properties within parcels 3 and 4A; ten of those parcels were occupied by the owners or their family members and none was alleged to be blighted. After negotiations with the NLDC failed, the corporation initiated condemnation proceedings against the remaining properties in November 2000. In December 2000 the petitioners filed suit in New London Superior Court asserting that the proposed takings violated the public-use limitation of the Fifth Amendment. Following a seven-day bench trial the Superior Court entered a permanent restraining order barring condemnation of the parcel 4A properties but denied relief as to the parcel 3 properties. Both sides appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of all challenged takings. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the federal constitutional question.
View caseA railroad loses a strip of land to street widening. The city argues compensation should cover only temporary disruption. The court awards damages measured by the full, perdurable diminution in the railroad's property value caused by the permanent taking.
The City of Chicago, acting under an 1872 Illinois statute that became part of its charter in 1875, passed an ordinance on October 9, 1880, to open and widen Rockwell Street from West 18th Street to West 19th Street by condemning parcels of land owned by individuals and parts of the right of way of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company within the city limits. On November 12, 1890, the city filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking condemnation of the property and asking that just compensation be ascertained by a jury, with the railroad company admitted as a defendant along with other interested parties. The jury awarded one dollar as just compensation to the railroad company for the parts of its right of way to be used for the street, while awarding compensation to individual owners for their parcels. The railroad moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and final judgment was entered in execution of the award. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in 149 Illinois 457. After affirmance the railroad company sued out a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court. The railroad had raised claims under the Fourteenth Amendment in its motion for new trial and in its assignment of errors filed in the state supreme court. The Illinois statute provided no provision for an answer by defendants in condemnation proceedings, but the railroad asserted its federal claims in the written motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
View caseNo. Perdurable duration means the interest continues indefinitely unless terminated by operation of law, agreement, or other legal mechanism. A conservation servitude remains in force across successive owners because its perdurable character prevents automatic expiration.
The LLC continues in existence without dissolution. Its perdurable character supplies ongoing legal personality separate from any individual member, allowing operations to proceed under the remaining members or new management.
Yes. The default rule grants every corporation perdurable duration unless the articles expressly provide a shorter period. When the articles are silent, the corporation continues indefinitely.
Yes. Because the servitude is perdurable, the burden runs with the land and binds successors regardless of whether they participated in the original transaction.
The partnership possesses perdurable duration by default. It continues as a distinct entity until a lawful event causes dissolution or termination under the statute.