Court Opinion

ID: 9666309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:10:51.484493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:26.494640
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JUNE 6, 1988 Robert H. Dudley, Justice.  On rehearing, the petitioner contends that the respondent, Otter Creek Development Company, received payments under the terms of an option, and therefore, should not be allowed to assert that the option violated the rule against perpetuities. The contention is without merit. After the respondent refused to accept an option payment, the petitioner filed a suit seeking a judgment declaring that the option was valid. The respondent answered that the option was void because it violated the rule against perpetuities. The respondent may properly assert such a defense. When a deed is invalid because it is contrary to public policy, and therefore void, the grantor is not estopped to assert its invalidity. Chase v. Cartwright, 53 Ark. 358, 14 S.W. 90 (1890); 28 Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 7 (1966). Petition denied. Purtle, J., not participating. Hickman and Hays, JJ., would grant.