Court Opinion

ID: 9536100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:54:53.207518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:27.294086
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Kelley
dissenting:
I dissent. The majority fail to persuade me.
It is acknowledged that this is a case of first impression in this jurisdiction. The City and the Atchisons entered into a contract, the terms of which both parties in good faith believed to be binding upon them. The City .now seeks to justify its having reneged on its agreement giving the Atchisons a preemptive right to lease or purchase at a third party offeror’s price after notice and within a limited period. The City bottoms its “right” to void the specific terms of its contractual obligation upon an ancient rule of property known as the Rule Against Perpetuities.
The Rule Against Perpetuities is an arbitrary judge made doctrine which was invoked for the purpose of keeping property alienable. To justify its application its reasoning must be valid as it pertains to the facts here.
Authorities cited in the majority opinion suggest that there is not complete unanimity when it comes to the application of the doctrine to all situations. Also, the comment of Messrs. Leach and Tudor concerning The Restatement of Property appeals to me, wherein they say:
“* * * There are many problems of perpetuities in which *312the authorities are so thin that a court facing one of these problems de novo should feel free to re-examine existing decisions; * *
Under the facts of this case the equities favor the Atchisons and the dire consequences which the doctrine was designed to avoid are not present here.
I would, therefore, favor following the reasoning and the'rule of Weber v. Texas Co., 83 F.2d 807, cert. denied 229 U.S. 561, 57 S.Ct. 23, 81 L.Ed. 413.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
On Petition for Rehearing, Mr. Chief Justice McWilliams, Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice Groves would deny the petition. Mr. Justice Pringle, Mr. Justice Hodges and Mr. Justice Kelley would grant the petition. Mr. Justice Lee did not participate. The Court being equally divided, the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.
On Petition for Rehearing, Mr. Justice Pringle states:
I would grant the Petition for Rehearing limited to the question of whether the matter should be returned to the trial court for further proceedings on issues other than those relating to the application of the rule against perpetuities.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Hodges joins me in this view.
On Petition for Rehearing Mr. Justice Kelley states:
Consistent with my dissent to the Court’s opinion I would grant a rehearing on all issues; however, in the alternative, having failed to obtain any adherents to my point of view, I join Mr. Justice Pringle in the limited review he would grant;