Also known as: units
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
An interval or measure of time used to fix the duration of an estate or other legal period.
A discrete identifiable portion of real property such as a lot, dwelling, or parcel within a larger development or common-interest community.
An interval or measure of time used to fix the duration of an estate or other legal period.
A discrete identifiable portion of real property such as a lot, dwelling, or parcel within a larger development or common-interest community.
A collection of interrelated statutes or provisions treated by a court as a single regulatory scheme for purposes of severability analysis.
A collection of interrelated statutes or provisions treated by a court as a single regulatory scheme for purposes of severability analysis.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Umeko Uchida grants Umar Usmani a leasehold interest in a commercial building for a fixed term of five years. The duration is expressed solely in yearly increments with no provision for earlier termination at will. This arrangement satisfies the requirement that the estate continue for successive periods measured in units of a year.
1 common questions
An estate for years exists when the duration is fixed in units of a year or multiples or divisions of a year. The fixed calendar measure distinguishes it from life estates or estates at will that lack any predetermined temporal unit.
Supporting sources
Uriel Urban conveys an access easement across his land to the owner of an adjacent lot now held by Utopia Pharmaceuticals. The easement deed expressly limits enjoyment to the current and future owners of that specific lot. The benefit therefore runs only with ownership of the benefited unit and cannot be transferred separately.
Union Steel grants a profit to harvest timber to an individual who owns no nearby property. The grant contains no language linking the profit to ownership or occupancy of any particular parcel. The benefit therefore stands in gross and may be transferred independently of any land unit.
Upland Industries records a declaration imposing servitudes on every lot in a new residential subdivision and then sells the first unit to Uma Underwood. The recorded declaration binds the conveyed unit and all remaining lots to the common scheme. The sale itself therefore creates enforceable servitudes on the transferred unit.
Ugo Uberti and his spouse seek dissolution of their marriage after twenty years. The court must apportion all property including the couple's jointly owned condominium unit without regard to marital misconduct. The unit's value is included in the overall marital estate subject to equitable division.
2 common questions
A servitude burden attaches to a unit when the obligation is imposed on the owner or occupier of that specific parcel in his or her capacity as owner or occupier. The burden then runs with the land and binds subsequent owners of the same unit.
Supporting sources
A servitude benefit remains appurtenant to each subdivided unit provided the original grant tied the benefit to ownership of the parcel that is later divided. Each resulting unit then carries its proportionate share of the appurtenant right.
Supporting sources
A state enacts a set of interrelated abortion statutes that function together as a single regulatory scheme. A court holds the entire collection unconstitutional. Because the provisions operate as one unit the invalidity of the core prohibition requires the entire statutory package to fall.
In March 1970, Jane Roe, a single woman residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted a federal action against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face. She also sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the statutes. Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant. She wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. She was unable to obtain a legal abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by continuation of the pregnancy. She could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction to secure a legal abortion. James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes. Two such prosecutions were pending against him in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions. He claimed that for many cases he was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code. John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint also naming the District Attorney as defendant. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple. Mrs. Doe was suffering from a neural-chemical disorder. Her physician had advised her to avoid pregnancy until her condition materially improved. She had discontinued use of birth control pills pursuant to medical advice. If she should become pregnant she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court for the Northern District of Texas. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class and Dr. Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. The Does had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy and did not have standing. It concluded that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face. The court dismissed the Does' complaint while denying injunctive relief. The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford appealed to the Supreme Court from that part of the District Court's judgment denying the injunction. The defendant District Attorney cross-appealed from the grant of declaratory relief. Both sides also took protective appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending decision by the Supreme Court.
View case1 common questions
When statutes function together as one unit the invalidity of any essential provision may require the entire statutory package to fall. Courts treat the interrelated provisions as inseparable for purposes of severability analysis.
Supporting sources
…available. XII Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent…