Opinion ID: 1925651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Policy Favoring Alienation of Property

Text: Libeau argues that the Agreement, if construed to prevent partition, constitutes an unreasonable restraint on alienation. She also contends that the trial court essentially overruled the settled policy favoring the transferability of real property. We find no merit to either claim. The trial court did note the fact that recent enactments, like the Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, [7] reflect a public policy favoring reasonable restrictions on alienation in order to protect land from commercial development. In doing so, the trial court merely highlighted the fact that all restraints on alienation are not prohibited: [I]t is not tenable ... to consider a restraint on the alienation of land unreasonable simply because that restraint might have the effect of diminishing a party's ability to get the same price that she might obtain if she was subject to no restraint at all.... Right now, for example, our State pays farmers to acquire their development rights, thereby disabling them from selling their land for non-agricultural use. The farmers' up-front decision to accept the benefits of the deal compensates them for the restriction on their ability to alienate the land to commercial developers. Put simply, that a party who availed herself of the benefits of a property ownership bargain now wishes to shun the accompanying restrictions on her right to sell is not a circumstance that presents any obvious conflict with a larger Delaware public policy. Something much more substantial has to be shown. [8] The trial court then applied settled law, as articulated in McInerney v. Slights [9] and the Restatement (First) of Property § 406 (1944), and concluded that the Agreement does not unreasonably restrain alienation during the housemates' lifetime. We affirm that holding on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the Court of Chancery's opinion.