Legal Definitions - biting rule

The biting rule is a principle used in interpreting legal documents, particularly deeds (documents transferring property ownership) and wills. It states that if a document initially grants someone complete and unrestricted ownership of a property – known as a fee simple – any subsequent clause or statement within that same document that attempts to limit, reduce, or place conditions on that full ownership will be considered invalid. In essence, once full ownership is clearly given, later attempts to take it back or restrict it are disregarded, and the initial grant of full ownership stands.

Here are some examples to illustrate the biting rule:

• Example 1: Restriction on Sale in a Will

  Imagine a will that states, "I give my primary residence, Blackacre, to my daughter, Emily, in fee simple." Later in the same will, a separate paragraph reads, "However, Emily must never sell Blackacre to anyone outside of our immediate family."

  How it illustrates the biting rule: The initial grant to Emily is "in fee simple," which signifies complete ownership, including the absolute right to sell the property to anyone she chooses. The subsequent clause attempts to "cut down" or restrict this fundamental right of ownership. Under the biting rule, the later restriction on who Emily can sell to would be considered void. Emily would receive Blackacre with full, unrestricted ownership and would be free to sell it to any buyer she wishes, regardless of family ties.

• Example 2: Limiting Use in a Deed

  Consider a deed transferring a large plot of undeveloped land from a seller to a buyer. The deed clearly states, "The grantor hereby conveys to the grantee, John Smith, Parcel A in fee simple." Further down in the same deed, a clause is added: "This land shall only be used for agricultural purposes and no commercial development is permitted."

  How it illustrates the biting rule: The grant of Parcel A "in fee simple" gives John Smith full and unrestricted ownership, which includes the right to use the land for any lawful purpose, including commercial development if zoning allows. The subsequent clause attempting to limit the land's use solely to agriculture and prohibit commercial development directly "modifies or qualifies" the initial full grant. According to the biting rule, this later restriction would be void, and John Smith would own the land with the freedom to use it for any lawful purpose, not just agriculture.

• Example 3: Attempted Future Inheritance Dictation in a Will

  Suppose a will contains the provision, "I give my vacation cottage to my nephew, Michael, in fee simple." A later sentence in the same document then states, "Upon Michael's death, the vacation cottage shall pass directly to my grandniece, Lisa."

  How it illustrates the biting rule: By granting the vacation cottage to Michael "in fee simple," the will gives him complete ownership, including the right to decide who inherits the property after his own death (either through his own will or through intestacy laws if he has no will). The subsequent clause attempting to dictate that the cottage must pass to Lisa after Michael's death directly "cuts down" Michael's fee simple ownership rights. Under the biting rule, this later provision would be void. Michael would receive the cottage with full ownership, and he would be free to dispose of it as he wishes during his lifetime or through his own will, without being bound by the instruction to pass it to Lisa.