Also known as: doctrine of waste · waste · law of waste
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common law doctrine that restrains the holder of a present possessory estate from committing acts that cause permanent injury to the land or substantially diminish its value for the benefit of the holder of a future interest.
Alice Adams holds a life estate in Blackacre with Bob Baker holding the remainder. Alice begins clear-cutting mature timber stands and selling the lumber for personal profit. Bob sues to enjoin further cutting. The court applies the waste doctrine to limit Alice to the same privileges as a fee simple owner except for the duty not to commit waste.
William Williams holds a fee tail estate preserved for a single lifetime. He begins clear-cutting mature timber stands on the land and selling the lumber for personal profit. The remainderman sues to enjoin further cutting. The court applies the waste doctrine to limit Williams to the same privileges as a fee simple owner except for the duty not to commit waste.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Carol Carter holds a life estate in Greenacre with Dan Davis holding the remainder. Carol removes load-bearing walls to convert the residence into a warehouse. Dan sues claiming waste. The court applies the waste doctrine to determine whether the alterations cause permanent injury to the future interest.
Edward Ellis holds a mortgage on commercial property owned by Frank Foster. Frank allows the roof to deteriorate without repair, causing structural damage. The mortgagee claims waste and seeks an injunction. The court applies the waste doctrine to evaluate whether failure to maintain the property impairs the security interest.
Whitney White holds a life estate in wooded acreage with Warren Wu holding the remainder. White removes several mature trees to improve sight lines for a new residence. Wu sues claiming waste. The court applies the waste doctrine to determine whether the removal constitutes unreasonable injury to the future interest.
Westmont Healthcare holds a mortgage on a commercial building owned by Warwick Electronics. Warwick allows the roof to deteriorate without repair, causing structural damage. The mortgagee claims waste and seeks an injunction. The court applies the waste doctrine to evaluate whether failure to maintain the property impairs the security interest.
Waste occurs when the life tenant commits acts that cause permanent injury to the land or substantially reduce its value for the remainderman. The doctrine presumes the grantor intended the land to pass in approximately the same condition as received.
Yes. Modern doctrine extends the waste concept to the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship. A mortgagor has a duty to protect the real estate value against loss that might endanger its usefulness as security, including failure to make reasonable repairs.
A mortgagee may pursue foreclosure, an injunction, or money damages. The mortgagee may also add reasonable expenditures to correct waste to the secured obligation.
No. Natural disasters and resulting damage do not constitute waste when the mortgagor takes no action to cause the harm.
…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…