Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

possibility of a reverter

Read a random definition: evidence of insurability

A quick definition of possibility of a reverter:

The possibility of reverter is a legal term that means if someone gives property to another person, but with a condition that must be met, and that condition is not met, then the property goes back to the original owner. For example, if someone gives a piece of land to someone else, but only if they use it for a specific purpose, and that person uses it for something else, then the land goes back to the original owner. This is called the possibility of reverter.

A more thorough explanation:

The possibility of reverter is a legal term that refers to a future interest held by a property owner, known as the grantor or transferor. This interest is held in a type of property ownership called a fee simple determinable, which means that the property will automatically revert back to the grantor if a certain condition is not met.

For example, if a property owner grants a piece of land to a school district "so long as the land is used for educational purposes," the grantor retains the possibility of reverter. If the school district stops using the land for educational purposes, the property will automatically revert back to the grantor.

The possibility of reverter is different from the right of entry, which is another type of future interest held by a grantor. The right of entry allows the grantor to reclaim the property if a certain condition is not met, but it is not automatic like the possibility of reverter.

Overall, the possibility of reverter is a legal tool that allows property owners to ensure that their property is used in a certain way, and to reclaim the property if that condition is not met.

Possessory lien | Possibility of reverter

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.