Slip Sliding Away: NJ Supreme Court Rules That Condominium Has No Duty To Clear Snow And Ice From Public Sidewalks

by:  C. John DeSimone, III

 It has long been settled common law that commercial landowners have a duty to clear snow and ice from public sidewalks abutting their land, but that residential landowners have no similar duty (Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street). In Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, decided on July 27, 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court described the commercial/residential dichotomy as a bright-line rule. Commercial landowners have a common law duty to clear snow and ice from abutting public sidewalks, residential landowners do not. The Luchejko Court held that a residential condominium building, because it is residential, does not have a common law duty to clear snow and ice from abutting public sidewalks. The Court found that the form of the property ownership, in this case, a corporate condominium entity, did not subject the Association to the same liability that would have fallen on a commercial landowner. In doing so the Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action at summary judgment. The Court also held that the management company, as the agent of the Association, owed no duty to the plaintiff and affirmed its dismissal.

Worth The Wait? Midwest Lumber Baron’s Fortune Passes To Heirs 90 Years After His Death

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

Anyone who went through law school remembers the rule against perpetuities, and with very few (entirely twisted) exceptions, most don't remember it fondly.  For the uninitiated, Black's Law Dictionary provides that the Rule Against Perpetuities prohibits "a grant of an estate unless the interest must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years . . . after the death of some person alive when the interest was created."   The rule goes back many centuries, and was intended to prevent landowners from controlling the use and disposition of property from beyond the grave and otherwise tying up property for generation after generation.  (Note:  If, at this point, you have no idea what the rule means or how it would be applied, then you find yourself in the same position I did right before my Property final.)  While some law schools no longer even teach the Rule Against Perpetuities because many states have modified or eliminated it by statute, a recent story from Michigan may cause them to rethink this position.

In a recent article, "Perpetuities Rule Finally Ends $100M Waiting Game For Lumber Baron's Heirs, 92 Years After His Death," the ABA Journal told the story of Wellington Burt, a "cantankerous Michigan lumber baron" whose hand-written will provided that his heirs were not allowed to collect their share of his fortune until 21 years after the death of his youngest grandchild in existence when he died.  Well, sadly for that youngest grandchild, this triggering event finally happened, so Burt's 12 great, great great, and great great great grandchildren, who range in age from 19 to 94 years old, will finally see their respective shares of his fortune some time month.  Incidentally, Mr. Burt died in 1919.


Continue reading “Worth The Wait? Midwest Lumber Baron’s Fortune Passes To Heirs 90 Years After His Death”