Also known as: possibilities of reverter
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A reversionary interest subject to a condition precedent. The interest remains in the transferor after conveyance of a fee simple determinable and becomes possessory only if the stated limiting event occurs.
Paige Porter conveyed Blackacre to Preston Pratt so long as the land remained farmland. When Preston later built a shopping center, Paige's retained interest automatically ripened into possession because the limiting event had occurred. The court recognized that Paige held the future interest created by the condition precedent in the original deed.
Pavel Petrov conveyed land to his son in fee simple conditional. After the son died without issue and with no executory interest holder, the interest passed to the person entitled under the possibility of reverter. Pavel's heirs therefore took possession under that retained future interest.
Portia Price held a fee tail estate subject to a possibility of reverter in favor of the original grantor. Upon Portia's death her surviving spouse claimed dower, but the court held that claim subordinate to the possibility of reverter that restricted the estate.
Phuong Pham conveyed land creating a fee tail preserved for a single lifetime only. After the grantee's death the surviving spouse sought curtesy, yet the court subordinated that claim to the possibility of reverter retained by the original transferor.
Paul Peterson held a fee simple conditional when he died. His surviving spouse claimed curtesy in the land, but the court ruled the claim subordinate to the possibility of reverter that had restricted the estate and had not been destroyed by any prior transfer.
Prime Logistics acquired land subject to a railroad right of way that the United States had granted decades earlier. When the railroad abandoned the line, the court held that the possibility of reverter retained by the original grantor caused title to revert automatically rather than leaving an easement in place.
In 1908 the Laramie, Hahn's Peak and Pacific Railroad obtained a 200-foot-wide right of way across public lands in Wyoming under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875. The railroad completed construction of its line in 1911. The line later passed through several owners and was used primarily to transport timber and cattle. In 1976 the United States issued a land patent conveying an 83-acre parcel in Fox Park, Wyoming, to Melvin and Lulu Brandt. The patent conveyed to the Brandts fee simple title to the land "with all the rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances, of whatsoever nature, thereunto belonging, unto said claimants, their successors and assigns, forever." The patent stated that the land was granted "subject to those rights for railroad purposes as have been granted to the Laramie[,] Hahn's Peak & Pacific Railway Company, its successors or assigns." The right of way crossed approximately ten acres of the patented parcel. In 1996 the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad notified the Surface Transportation Board of its intent to abandon the right of way. After removing the tracks and ties and obtaining Board approval, the railroad completed abandonment in 2004. In 2006 the United States filed suit seeking a judicial declaration of abandonment and an order quieting title to the right of way in the Government. The complaint named the owners of 31 parcels crossed by the abandoned right of way, including Marvin Brandt who held the Fox Park parcel through a family trust. Brandt contested the claim and filed a counterclaim asserting that the right of way was a mere easement extinguished by abandonment. The district court granted summary judgment to the United States. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA possibility of reverter is a reversionary interest subject to a condition precedent, whereas a reversion is a reversionary interest not subject to any condition precedent. The distinction turns on whether the retained interest follows a determinable estate or an estate that ends naturally.
Supporting sources
No. Retained future interests in the transferor, including a possibility of reverter following a fee simple determinable, are categorically exempt from the rule against perpetuities.
Supporting sources
Yes. Unlike a power of termination, a possibility of reverter is freely alienable by the grantor during life.
Supporting sources
The interest passes under the grantor's will or by intestacy to the person entitled under the possibility of reverter when no issue or holder of an executory interest stands in priority.
Supporting sources
Yes. Upon occurrence of the condition precedent the fee simple determinable ends and the possibility of reverter ripens into present possession without any affirmative action by the holder.
…"basic common law principles" require us to retreat from our prior holdings that railroad rights of way entail an implied possibility of reverter to the original grantor—the United States—should the right of way cease to be used by a railroad for its intended purpose. Ante , at 1265–1266. But federal and state decisions in this…