Casey v. Casey
Arkansas Supreme Court
287 Ark. 395 (1985)

- Written by Laura Julien, JD
Facts
Fred Casey had seven children, including Donald Casey (defendant) and Sam Casey (plaintiff). In 1974 Fred died and left $50.00 each to six of his seven children. The remainder of Fred’s estate, including his real property, was left to Donald. Shortly before Fred died, he added a codicil to his will restricting the terms of Donald’s inheritance. Specifically, the codicil stated that Donald’s daughter, Kim Casey, could never own or possess as a tenant the real property passed to Donald through Fred’s estate, nor could Kim ever be a guest on said property for more than one week per calendar year. The codicil further provided that if the restriction was violated, Donald’s interest would automatically terminate by forfeiture and the estate would vest in Sam and his heirs. Following Fred’s death, Donald filed a petition in the Pope County Chancery Court to have the cloud on title removed and to have the codicil restriction declared void. The court held that the codicil restriction was too vague to be enforced and constituted an unreasonable restriction on the alienation of property. The court further declared that because the restriction was invalid, Donald held a fee simple absolute interest in the real property. Sam filed an appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holt, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.