Legal Definitions - non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem

Non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem is a Latin legal phrase that translates to "he did not commit waste against the prohibition." In property law, this term refers to a specific defense used by a party who has been ordered by a court to give up possession of land or property. It is an assertion that the party did not cause any damage or destruction (known as "waste") to the property during the critical period *after* the court issued its judgment prohibiting such actions, but *before* the property was officially transferred or delivered to the rightful owner or plaintiff, typically by a sheriff or other legal authority.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Eviction Scenario: Imagine a tenant, Sarah, who has lost an eviction case and a court has issued a judgment ordering her to vacate her apartment. There is a period of several days between the court's judgment and the sheriff's scheduled arrival to physically remove Sarah and deliver possession to the landlord. During this interim, the landlord accuses Sarah of intentionally damaging the kitchen countertops and removing built-in shelves. Sarah's defense would be non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem, arguing that she did not cause any damage (waste) to the property *after* the court's order prohibiting such actions and *before* she was officially dispossessed.

• Foreclosure Scenario: Consider a homeowner, Mr. Davies, whose house has been foreclosed upon by his bank. The court has issued a judgment of foreclosure, but there is a two-week period before the sheriff is scheduled to execute the writ of possession and formally transfer the property to the bank. During this time, the bank alleges that Mr. Davies removed the furnace and several light fixtures from the house. Mr. Davies' legal response would be non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem, asserting that he did not commit any acts of waste on the property *after* the foreclosure judgment was issued and *before* the bank took official possession.

• Property Dispute Scenario: A court rules in favor of Ms. Rodriguez in a boundary dispute, determining that a small garden shed on her neighbor Mr. Peterson's property actually belongs to Ms. Rodriguez. The court issues an order for Mr. Peterson to vacate the shed and for possession to be delivered to Ms. Rodriguez. Before the official transfer of the shed, Ms. Rodriguez accuses Mr. Peterson of deliberately smashing the shed's windows. Mr. Peterson would invoke non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem, claiming he did not damage the shed (commit waste) *after* the court's ruling and *before* the formal handover of possession.