DOCSLIB.ORG

The Most Important Issue in Every Ground Lease by Joshua Stein

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Most Important Issue in Every Ground Lease by Joshua Stein The Most Important Issue in Every Ground Lease By Joshua Stein When a property owner and a de- more conservative than developers Although some commentators veloper negotiate a long-term ground and investors, will likewise fear that may have seen a trend toward this lease of a development site, one issue a massive increase in ground rent at type of formula, I have not seen overshadows almost all others: how some distant date will diminish or it. Like many of the comments in should ground rent adjust over time destroy the security for their loans. this article about “typical” practice, to protect the property owner, as les- Though “cowboy” developers may my failure to note the trend might sor, from infl ation? And how can the sometimes take risks, lenders rarely only refl ect the particular universe lessor participate in future increases have the same mindset, and they of ground lease transactions that I in value of this particular site, which never forget that the obligation to have personally been involved with may or may not correlate with infl a- pay ground rent is always structur- or seen recently. Or it could refl ect a tion? At the same time, though, how ally senior to any leasehold lender’s view in the market that in the long can the developer assure that its collateral.2 run—i.e., multiple business cycles— leasehold position will also maintain six or seven percent has worked In response to these concerns, its value without becoming over- reasonably well, and that there’s no a lender or prospective lessee will whelmed by rent payments that no reason to believe it will stop working sometimes suggest a “cap” on ground longer make any business sense? anytime soon. rent adjustments. Typically, though, a TYPICAL APPROACH • Lessors lessor will regard any such proposal Of course, if a “typical” rent reset and lessees typically resolve these as a non-starter, because it necessar- occurs in a real estate depression—or concerns by agreeing that every two ily undercuts the protection that the at any time when valuations use very or three decades, they will reappraise lessor wanted to achieve through the high capitalization rates—the lessee the development site that the lessor future ground rent adjustments. may get lucky. originally delivered to the transac- Applying a fi xed percentage tion. In my experience, the ground As an alternative, a ground to future land values will create rent will then adjust to equal six or lease could theoretically refer to problems for both a lessee and its seven percent of the then-current fair some objective third-party index for lender—and wonderful results for market value of the site, i.e., whatever long-term capitalization rates for real the lessor—if, at the moment of the someone would pay to purchase the estate investments at the time of the rent reset, valuations in the larger development site. Until that happens, rent reset. And, very occasionally, the real estate market use capitalization rent may go up a bit every year or revaluation might direct the apprais- rates signifi cantly below six percent. few years1—or not, especially in older ers to determine the new rent based At any such time, real estate values ground leases. In most cases, the rent generally on market conditions for will refl ect a capitalization of future never drops. newly negotiated ground leases at income at, say, four percent, but the the time of the rent reset. In other The reference to six or seven per- ground lease will require payment of words, the rent would adjust to equal cent in rent adjustment formulas has ground rent at, say, six percent of that “fair market rental value” at the time remained remarkably stable for quite capitalized amount, which may put of adjustment, without using any a while, even through the very low the lessee in an untenable position formula to derive the rent adjustment interest rates of the last few years. and undercut or destroy the value of from land value or anything else. The the lender’s collateral. drafters of the ground lease must still Although ground leases typically defi ne with absolute clarity how fair use the approach just described, pro- LINKAGE TO INTEREST market rental value is to be deter- spective ground lessees sometimes RATES? • Some ground leases try mined. They also must defi ne any worry that if a ground rent adjust- to mitigate these risks by replacing assumptions the appraisers should ment occurs in a low-interest rate pe- a fi xed adjustment percentage with consider in that process. riod like today’s, the typical approach a percentage tied to interest rates at may overcompensate the lessor, the time of the rent reset. The parties VALUATION ON A RANGE leaving the lessee paying ground rent might choose a long-term rate like OF DATES • Ground lease negotia- that may feel excessive. Once the ad- 20-year Treasury securities, or, more tors sometimes suggest that instead justment occurs, this approach might unusually, they might use a shorter- of valuing the site on a specifi c date, diminish or even destroy the value of term one like the prime rate. In either the valuation should look to a range the leasehold estate. case, they would look at the average of dates, using the average value level of that rate over some period over, say, a three- or fi ve-year period LENDER’S CONCERNS • and then add on some spread. whose midpoint is the intended rent Leasehold lenders, generally even reset date. NYSBA N.Y. Real Property Law Journal | Winter 2014 | Vol. 42 | No. 1 17 That approach may make some ed on the site when the parties signed ment potential of raw land (assumed sense. Suppose a rent reset used a their lease, or whatever improve- to be unimproved) and the actual single fi xed valuation date of October ments exist at the time of revaluation? physical development that exists on 1, 2008, two weeks after the Lehman This is a common disagreement. The the site at the time of any rent reset. Brothers bankruptcy fi ling. Given the lease should entirely pre-empt it. For example, changes in zon- state of the fi nancial and commercial In general, the appraiser should try ing or other law could change the real estate worlds on that date, the to replicate whatever existed when value of the site, if it were priced as lessor would probably feel victim- the parties signed the lease, usually hypothetical raw land. For the rent ized by a very low valuation. Going vacant land. To avoid confusion, the reset, though, the parties need to forward, that particular lessor might lease should say that as clearly as think about one minor detail: if the favor using an average of the val- possible. transaction played out as the parties ues on multiple dates over multiple GROUND LEASES OF MORE originally anticipated, then by the years. THAN JUST GROUND • If im- time of the rent reset the lessee will Valuation on a range of dates provements existed at lease incep- have already built improvements on would not need to require a complete tion, and the lessor initially demised the land. At the time of the rent reset, reappraisal each time; perhaps the those improvements to the lessee those improvements will probably only full appraisal would precisely tie along with the underlying “ground,” not be obsolete—i.e., ready for demo- to the midpoint date. The other dates the market will often still regard the lition or major redevelopment. could require only adjusted apprais- transaction as a “ground lease,” even If zoning at the time of the rent als, taking into account only certain though it covers existing improve- reset would allow much more de- elements of the appraisal analysis, ments and not just ground. The velopment than the building already such as then-current capitalization characterization as a “ground lease” in place at that time, then that up- and vacancy rates. would depend largely on whether the zoning does not help the lessee very lessee’s rights and obligations looked much. If the lessee must pay rent for Lessors and lessees generally more like ownership (an investment newly created development potential prefer, however, to avoid the time, transaction and typically regarded that the lessee cannot really use, then expense, and logistical diffi culties as a ground lease) or mere rights the lessee’s leasehold may no longer of dealing with multiple appraisal of occupancy not readily salable or make economic sense. Conversely, dates. They tend to feel that way fi nanceable in the market (a “space if zoning changes have reduced the even though an average of multiple lease”).3 appraisals might make the calcula- permitted development on the site, tion less arbitrary. The use of a single If a ground lease covers improve- but the lessee’s improvements are bright-line date introduces a greater ments that existed at the time of lease now overbuilt and can remain as a element of luck for both parties, but inception, the rent reset should usu- legal nonconforming use, then the both seem generally willing to take ally consider only the improvements lessor would argue that the revalua- their chances. as they existed at that time. The rent tion process should ignore the down reset clause might, however, require zoning. The need to periodically revalue the appraisers to take into account Another question along those the site for the purposes of ground any upgrading or expansion that the same lines: should newly discovered rent adjustment practically invites lessee accomplished.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Farm Building Rent Presentation
    Building Rent What’s a Fair Value? Ken Bolton UW‐Extension Center For Dairy Profitability Arriving at a Fair Rental Value • For whom? • Landlord? • Renter? • Both? – High/Low approach Arriving at a Fair Rental Value Landlord Renter • High • High – Out –of‐pocket costs, PLUS – Full ownership cost – Annual ownership costs • Low • Rate of return on Investment – Less than • Low (Out Of Pocket) • Taxes – Taxes • Insurance – Insurance • Repairs – Repairs? Arriving at a Fair Rental Value • Full ownership cost – Actual costs for • Taxes‐ (1‐1.5% of building’s market value) • Insurance‐ (0.5‐1.0% “) • Repairs‐ (1.0‐1.5% “) ‐PLUS‐ • Capital Recovery Charge (CRC) – Depreciation (0‐5%) – Interest on investment‐ CD rate Arriving at a Fair Rental Value • What’s a Building Worth? – Market value – Insured value – Assessed value – Appraised value – Replacement cost MINUS depreciation – Contributory value • Farm value‐land value Real Estate Tax Bill Arriving at a Fair Rental Value • “Improvements” – House‐ 4 bedroom, finished basement built 1996 – Shop‐ 40’ X 60’, 4‐ season built 2004 – Pole barn ‐ 40’ X 60’ built 2004 Arriving at a Fair Rental Value • “Fair” market Value • Using The Real Estate Tax Bill – Assessed value of Improvements ‐ value of improvements not to be rented= value building to be rented – $274,700 – ($214,700 house + 50,000 shop) = • $10,000 pole barn – 40’ X 60”= 2400 ft.2 = $4.17/ft.2 Arriving at a Fair Rental Value • Real Estate Tax Bill, continued – $10,000 building value X 2.5% (taxes, insurance, repairs) = • $250 – $10,000 building value X 3% (depreciation) = • $300 – $10,000 building value X 1% (hopeful CD rate) = • $100 – Total ($250 + 300 + 100) = • $650/year/ $54.17/month (add value of technology) • $250 min.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Leases: Rent Reset Analysis
    Peer-Reviewed Article Long-Term Leases: Rent Reset Analysis by Tony Sevelka, MAI, SRA, AI-GRS Abstract A provision for resetting rent is often found in long-term leases, with the objective being to periodically analyze the value attributed to the leased real estate. The property rights to be valued at each rent reset depend on the language of the lease, especially the rent reset clause. The lack of specificity associated with use of the term market value has led to questionable application of the term in rent resets. Inconsistent interpretations of a lease can lead to divergent opin- ions of value. Sometimes rent resetting provisions have no connection to the terms of the lease or the actual property rights; this may result in situations where it is difficult to apply conventional appraisal methods. This article summarizes and discusses a sample of rent reset cases and explores creative valuation solutions to rent reset valuation challenges. Introduction rent reset is dictated by the provisions of the lease, and the lease usually calls for arbitration if Rent reset clauses are typically found in long- the landlord and tenant are unable to negotiate a term leases for land (unimproved or improved).1 new rent within a specified time frame. A lease is “a contract in which the rights to use A rent reset analysis for a land lease has the and occupy land, space, or structures are trans- same objective as for a space lease—quantifying ferred by the owner to another for a specified a new rent—unless the land lease only calls for a period of time
    [Show full text]
  • 1400 Co Ownership and Condominium
    1400 CO-OWNERSHIP AND CONDOMINIUM Marshall E. Tracht Associate Professor, Hofstra University School of Law © Copyright 1999 Marshall E. Tracht Abstract Co-ownership refers to legal relations in which two or more entities have equal rights to the use and enjoyment of property. Co-ownership relationships may satisfy the preferences of some owners, and predefined categories of co-ownership, as opposed to contractually defined relations, may allow parties to satisfy these preferences at relatively low cost. However, shared ownership results in coordination and externality problems, which the law attempts to mitigate in numerous ways, including judicial oversight of ‘reasonableness’ (as in the law of waste) or fiduciary duties; ending the co-ownership relation (through the right of partition) or providing rules that seek to optimize the joint decision-making process (such as compulsory unitization). A major area of growth in shared ownership is in condominium developments, where entities own some property individually, while co-owning common facilities. This permits parties to take advantage of economies of scale and the joint provision of common goods. Condominium arrangements are governed by a combination of contract, statute and judicial law, and typically include democratic decision-making structures intended to minimize the sum of decision-making costs (gathering information, voting, and bargaining) and the cost of erroneous decisions. JEL classification: K11, P32, H41 Keywords: Cotenancy, Co-ownership, Condiminium, Cooperative, Communal Ownership 1. Introduction Co-ownership refers to legal relationships that entitle two or more entities to equal rights to the use and enjoyment of property. Although it most often arises in the context of real property, co-ownership may apply to any type of property.
    [Show full text]
  • Convey 04 Eug. Amend 06 Aug. Final
    LAW SOCIETY CONVEYANCING HANDBOOK CHAPTER 4 LANDLORD AND TENANT LEASES OF meeting of the solicitors acting for Lending Institutions in Dublin has considered the DWELLINGHOUSES Aeffect of Section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 1) Bill 1977, having regard to the practice of leases of dwellinghouses on building estates being executed 1978 (NO.1) ACT by all parties well in advance of the completion of the houses, and being held in escrow by the lessor’s solicitors, usually to enable stamp duty on the lease to be assessed and impressed prior to completion. It was the unanimous view of the solicitors present that such a lease even though dated prior to the date of coming into force of the Act would be void under the Act if it were held in escrow at the date of the passing of the Act and then delivered to the purchasers afterwards. The meeting further considered the difficulties which would face a Lending Institution’s solicitor presented, shortly after the passing of the Act, with a lease dated prior to the date of passing of the Act, of deciding whether such a lease were void because it had been held in escrow or valid because it had been delivered prior to the passing of the Act. The view of the meeting was that a Lending Institution solicitor could not undertake the burden of making such a decision. The meeting noted that the provisions of Section 2, Sub-section (4) of the Bill which protected the position of a purchaser of a leasehold interest deemed void under Section 2, Sub-section (1), did not extend to a mortgagee and accordingly agreed that the solicitors acting for Lending Institutions would not be able to accept leases of dwellinghouses after the date of coming into force of the Act even though the leases might have been dated prior to the passing of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Property Taxes and Residential Rents Leah J. Tsoodle & Tracy M
    Forthcoming. Journal of Real Estate Economics, 2008, 36(1), pp. 63-80. Property Taxes and Residential Rents Leah J. Tsoodle & Tracy M. Turner Abstract. Property taxes are a fundamental source of revenue for local governments, comprising 73% of local government tax revenue in the United States. In this paper, we empirically investigate the impact of residential property taxes on residential rents. Using data from the American Housing Survey and the National League of Cities, we estimate numerous specifications of a hedonic rent equation with comprehensive unit-level, neighborhood-level and city-level controls. We find that a one standard deviation increase in the property tax rate raises residential rents by roughly $400 annually. ______________________ Tsoodle: Coordinator, State of Kansas Land Use-Value Project. Turner: Department of Economics, Kansas State University. We thank Allen Featherstone, John Crespi, Bryan Schurle, Dong Li, and session participants at the American Real Estate and Urban Economics May 2005 conference for valuable feedback. We thank Matt Gardner for a helpful discussion, Jack Goodman for generously calculating some statistics for us, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. We especially thank Editor Coulson for his insights and guidance. Tsoodle gratefully acknowledges funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Early Doctoral Research Program. 1 I. Introduction Property taxes are a fundamental source of revenue for local governments, comprising 73% of local government tax revenue in the United States (Statistical Abstract, 2006), and an extensive literature examines their economic impacts. By extending and empirically testing the Tiebout (1956) model, much of this research investigates the extent to which property taxes and public services are capitalized into house prices, and whether household mobility and local government competition can lead to an efficient provision of local public services.
    [Show full text]
  • Condominium: a Reconciliation of Competing Interests?
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 18 Issue 4 Issue 4 - A Symposium on Small Article 7 Business Symposium on Small Business 10-1965 Condominium: A Reconciliation of Competing Interests? James C. Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation James C. Clark, Condominium: A Reconciliation of Competing Interests?, 18 Vanderbilt Law Review 1773 (1965) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol18/iss4/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES Condominium: A Reconciliation of Competing Interests? I. INMRODUCTION As Americans have migrated to urban areas, the suburbs have grown at an astounding pace, principally by means of single home sub- divisions. Of necessity, this march to the suburbs must cease at some point and people will begin to return to the central city and its close- lying peripheral areas if for no other reason than to lessen the heavy economic burden resulting from man-hours wasted in commuting great distances. Often the alternative to the suburban home is an apartment in the city. Apartment renting, however, runs counter to a deeply ingrained American tradition of individual home ownership, a tradition encouraged by favorable tax consequences.' It seems only 1. The homeowner may deduct state and local, and foreign real property taxes, INT.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Income – Landlord As Additional Insured (Rental Value)
    POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CP 15 03 06 07 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BUSINESS INCOME – LANDLORD AS ADDITIONAL INSURED (RENTAL VALUE) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS INCOME (AND EXTRA EXPENSE) COVERAGE FORM BUSINESS INCOME (WITHOUT EXTRA EXPENSE) COVERAGE FORM SCHEDULE Description Of Rented Premises: Name Of Additional Insured: Mailing Address Of Additional Insured: Applicable Business Income Causes Of Coverage Form Coinsurance Loss Form (Enter Form Number) Limit Of Insurance Percentage $ % Endorsements, If Any, Supplementing Or Restricting The Covered Causes Of Loss With Respect To The Coverage Provided Under This Endorsement: Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A. The person or entity identified in the Schedule is C. With respect to the coverage provided under this insured for loss of "Rental Value", up to the Limit endorsement, the definition of "Rental Value" is of Insurance shown in the Schedule. Such cover- replaced by the following: age applies in accordance with all terms of Busi- "Rental Value" means the: ness Income – "Rental Value" Coverage under the applicable Business Income Coverage Form, and 1. Net income that would have been earned as all conditions in the Common Policy Conditions rental income from tenant occupancy of the and Commercial Property Conditions, except as premises described in the Schedule, as fur- otherwise provided in this endorsement or other nished and equipped by the Additional Insured; applicable endorsement. and B. The Causes Of Loss Form shown in the Schedule 2. Amount of continuing normal operating ex- applies to the coverage provided under this en- penses which are the legal obligation of the dorsement.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Property Co-Ownership and Mineral Developments
    University of Tulsa College of Law TU Law Digital Commons Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works 1997 A Tale of Two Owners: Real Property Co- Ownership and Mineral Developments Marla Mansfield Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/fac_pub Part of the Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons Recommended Citation 43 Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst. 20-1 (1997). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. --- STITUTE 19-60 ' gas might not attract as Chapter 20 :re stated to be a penalty A TALE OF TWO OWNERS: zlements of the definition REAL PROPERTY GO-OWNERSHIP AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT y. If Shipper delivers Unautho- r's System, then such Unautho- ned by, the Unauthorized Gas @MarlaE. Mansfield it of Policies and Procedures. Professor of Law The University of Tulsa, College of Law t doesn't meet all of the Tulsa, Oklahoma r scheduled gas. Because to that unauthorized gas statement of Policies and Synopsis :opy of that Statement of .e agreement is signed, Q 20.01 Introduction ;o revise it later, without !asily make unauthorized [I] The Concept of Owning Together n those specified in the [21 Inherent Problems with Concurrent Ices. A general require- Ownership acts might limit Gather- Q 20.02 Tenants-in-Common and Non-Mineral [re
    [Show full text]
  • Apartment | Select | Ebrochure
    Apartment CORE COVERAGE HIGHLIGHTS Travelers Apartment business • Employee dishonesty: General liability highlights – Coverage is included up to $25,000 (with an option General liability coverage protects you against claims for owners policy offers an to cover property managers as employees). Limit may damages because of bodily injury or property damage to affordable way for you to be increased others resulting from your business operations. • Equipment breakdown: • General liability limits of $1 million per occurrence/ obtain property and liability – Coverage for equipment breakdown is included within $2 million aggregate are standard for Apartment Pac and applicable limits Apartment Pac Plus with an option for higher limits of insurance. This policy includes – Diagnostic equipment, power-generating equipment $2 million per occurrence/$4 million aggregate available key coverages that are important and production equipment are limited to $100,000 for for Apartment Pac direct damage. Limit may be increased • Bodily injury and property damage liability – Service interruption of water, communication or power to any business, and also offers • Medical payments for $5,000 per person supply services is covered from a covered breakdown (when business income and extra expense is covered) • Damage to premises rented to you is included up to additional business-specific $300,000. Limit may be increased • Newly acquired or constructed buildings: options that are important for • Host liquor liability – Coverage is provided for newly acquired or constructed any apartment owner. buildings up to $500,000 for up to 180 days • Limited worldwide coverage • • Ordinance or law coverage: Personal and advertising injury Property highlights • Premises liability – Coverage is included for a combined limit of $25,000 at Property coverage covers your building and business personal each described premises.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Federal Claims the National
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE NATIONAL APARTMENT ) ASSOCIATION, DARBY DEVELOPMENT ) COMPANY, INC., GWR MANAGEMENT, ) Case Number LLC, MCLEAN INVESTMENTS, LLC, ) ________________________________ SHANDER INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this Complaint against the United States of America (“Government”), and in support state and allege as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), a Government agency, issued a nationwide order entitled “Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19” (the “CDC Order”). The CDC Order effectively prohibits property owners from evicting tenants of residential rental properties who are delinquent or in default on their rent payments, contrary to the property owners’ legal, contractual, and constitutional property and other rights. The CDC Order has been extended multiple times and will be effective by its terms until at least July 31, 2021. The CDC Order has subjected property owners nationwide, over their objection, to an extended Government-authorized physical invasion, occupation, or appropriation of their private property by third parties without compensation. 2. Under settled constitutional law, the right to exclude is a fundamental element of property rights and falls within the category of interests that the Government cannot take without just compensation. As a result of the CDC Order and their consequent inability to exercise their constitutional property rights and contractual rights, property owners in the United States have suffered enormous economic consequences. Without limitation, while continuing to incur all costs of ownership, they have been unable to evict non-rent-paying tenants from rental units and to generate income by leasing those units to rent-paying tenants.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Rents in Maryland;
    A-\ GROUND RENTS IN MARYLAND; WITH AN INTRODUCTION CONCERNING THE TENURE OF LAND UNDER THE PROPRIETARY. BY LEWIS MAYER, Of the Baltimore Bar. WITH AN ARTICLE ON MANORS IN MARYLAND BY JOHN JOHNSON, [K. AND THE RECORD OF THE COURT-BARON AND COURT- LEET OF ST. CLEMENT'S MANOR, REPRINTED FROM THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY. U ALTI MORE: CUSHINGS & BAILEY. 1883. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1883,by OTSHIN&S & BAILEY, in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. PBESS OF ISAAC FEIEPHNWALD, BALTIMORE, ID. PREFACE. A treatise on Ground Rents in Maryland, a form of investment peculiar to this State, and which is now attracting a good deal of attention, it was thought, might prove acceptable to lawyers, students of law, investigators of local institutions, and to those who, from a business point of view or otherwise, might be interested in the matter. The undersigned has accordingly written this little book, in the hope that it may serve its purpose of fur- nishing definite information on the subject in question. As speculation on the origins of all things is now in vogue, an undertaking of this sort would be incom- plete, if it did not offer some suggestions as to the origin of our system of ground rents. It was, there- fore, necessary to make Lord Baltimore's Charter the starting point of the historico-legal portion of the work. From that instrument the tenure of land under the Proprietary is traced and explained; the evolution of ground rents out of that tenure is then shown, and reasons are assigned why they happened to assume their present form.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Maryland's Intestate Succession Law
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 13 Article 9 Number 1 Fall 1982 1982 Recent Developments in Maryland's Intestate Succession Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation (1982) "Recent Developments in Maryland's Intestate Succession Law," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 13: No. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol13/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORUM In so doing, the court indulged in Additionally, to best effectuate the a lengthy review of the statutory imposition of its holding, the court Recent history of MPDA and of the pre- adopted an interpretation of the term vailing doctrines which other states "acquired" appearing in § 3-6A- Developments in with similar statutes have employed 01(e) as: Maryland's Intestate in enforcing those statutes. While The on-going process of mak- stressing the importance of protect- ing payment for property. Tib- Succession Law ing the interests of spouses who had bets, 406 A.2d at 77. Under this made monetary and nonmonetary definition, characterization of contribution to the marital unit and nonmarital or marital property The 1982 amendment to Md. Est. residence, the court considered and depends upon the source of & Trusts Code Ann. § 3-102 (1974), rejected two competing theories each contribution as payments is a welcome change to Maryland's adopted by a majority of its sister are made, rather than at the time jurisdictions: (1) the "inception of intestate succession law.
    [Show full text]