Fee Simple Determinable

Liam.Carroll00

Hi all,

Just wondering if anyone could assist me on an academic issue im having.

We all know that conditions attached to a fee simple determinable under the LCLRA 2009, which completely restrict marriage are void. However, the use of the word "completely" leads me to believe that there is some sway in this part of the legislation.

Would a condition requiring a woman to remain married to a man in order to keep possession of the land concerned in a fee simple determinable be void? Really, the condition isn't "completely" restricing marriage. Rather it is restricting divorce.

Procrastastudy

Liam.Carroll00 wrote: »

Hi all,

Just wondering if anyone could assist me on an academic issue im having.

We all know that conditions attached to a fee simple determinable under the LCLRA 2009, which completely restrict marriage are void. However, the use of the word "completely" leads me to believe that there is some sway in this part of the legislation.

Would a condition requiring a woman to remain married to a man in order to keep possession of the land concerned in a fee simple determinable be void? Really, the condition isn't "completely" restricing marriage. Rather it is restricting divorce.

Naughty naughty. Read Wylie and have a look at some of the things he has to say about how things can be reworded and that conditions that are there to provide until someone is married are different to something restraining marriage. I believe a corollary can be drawn - perhaps it cant but there are marks for trying.

What you are really looking for is authority that restraining divorce would be upheld / struck down. The person setting the *ahem cough* is rather good in this particular area and probably knows that finding that is going to be a bit of a bugger. Given when divorce became possible in Ireland and the length of time it takes for these issues to raise their heads in this area of law I would suggest looking at other jurisdictions - albeit bearing in mind the divergent nature of the law in some respects.

Liam.Carroll00

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Naughty naughty. Read Wylie and have a look at some of the things he has to say about how things can be reworded and that conditions that are there to provide until someone is married are different to something restraining marriage. I believe a corollary can be drawn - perhaps it cant but there are marks for trying.

What you are really looking for is authority that restraining divorce would be upheld / struck down. The person setting the *ahem cough* is rather good in this particular area and probably knows that finding that is going to be a bit of a bugger. Given when divorce became possible in Ireland and the length of time it takes for these issues to raise their heads in this area of law I would suggest looking at other jurisdictions - albeit bearing in mind the divergent nature of the law in some respects.

Haha you spend too much time on here procrastastudy, I'll get a copy of Riley tomorow, was using articles and cases so far but found very little in this area. Thanks for the help

Procrastastudy

Liam.Carroll00 wrote: »

Haha you spend too much time on here procrastastudy, I'll get a copy of Riley tomorow, was using articles and cases so far but found very little in this area. Thanks for the help

As far as I can see there is very little - she loves the obscure! Let me know if you came across anything will you please? I'll do the same. And yes this thing is a bloody time sink! I almost closed my account a couple of weeks back.

Liam.Carroll00

Haha she definetly does, that would be great if you did find anything, I'll let you know if I do.

Carawaystick

Liam.Carroll00 wrote: »

Would a condition requiring a woman to remain married to a man in order to keep possession of the land concerned in a fee simple determinable be void? Really, the condition isn't "completely" restricing marriage. Rather it is restricting divorce.

If the man died, the woman would no longer be married...

Procrastastudy

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the man died, the woman would no longer be married...

Nice introduction of uncertainty there!