Frank,
You are dragging up an old debate we have had here a few times.
Some on this board believe that Bradley, in his benevolence,
inexpensively deeded the beachfront to the City because he wanted
the people to use it forever.
Others, myself included, believe the mean old cuss had to have the
beachfront ripped away from him in a lawsuit by the City, he
received a good negotiated sum for it and that he never wanted the
people to use it forever (despite what he once wrote on top of the
1903 map).
I've been promising myself to get down to Freehold to research the
lawsuit in more detail. Someday.
As to Liquor licenses, Bradley kept this City dry. I don't think he
allowed any, and they came into play in Asbury after Bradley lost
control (if I'm recalling correctly).
Regarding perpetuities, that is the big joke in law school, trying
to make sense of the "Rule Against Perpetuities." It has something
to do with deed restrictions expiring after a human gestation
period, a life and 21 years, but the whole thing gets confused by
a "fertile octogenarian" (I'm not making any of this up).
Needles to say, the Rule Against Perpetuities question is the one on
the bar exam everyone skips because they know they are going to get
it wrong anyway.
In simpler terms, perpetuity, which means always, doesn't always
mean forever (I know - laws are terrible when not clear).
There are many ways to break a restriction, even one deeming itself
in perpetuity. It has to be legal in the first place. I could put
in the deed of my house that "it shall never be owned by a Democrat,
and if it is, it reverts back to me." Unfortunately, being a
Democrat is still legal ;-) Seriously, you can imagine there used
to be color restrictions in deeds that are certainly not legal today.
You can also attack one that is vague or overbroad.
Remember too that the original restriction is nothing more than a
contract between a buyer and seller. Whether it is intended to
control subsequent purchasers is always an issue. If there is no
one interested in enforcing the restriction with the authority of
the original seller, it likely just goes away.
That is why conservation easements usually appoint a 3rd party non-
profit to oversee the easement, so someone is always present to
enforce it.
Also, restrictions become weaker when you try to enforce them
against a government.
Regarding Asbury Park's Beachfront, the matter was already litigated
in 1989 when they vacated part of Ocean Avenue. The Appellate
Division found that the City was not bound by any covenant to hold
the beachfront open for public use.
Note too in 1988 the Trustee of Bradley's Estate released all claims
regarding violations, reverters, etc, to the City. That was noted
in the Court's decision.
The Bradley heirs no longer have a claim to enforce anything to the
beachfront.
(Note: The court stated that the $100,000.00 paid to Bradley was
likely market value in 1903, however that seems to be dicta and not
actually a finding of the Court).
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycheech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> In a previous post, Werner wrote:
> "Having a Bar, owned by the 'Master Developer', associated
with a
> patron getting beaten to death is not something Asbury Park should
> take lightly."
>
> Werner, as historian, you would know better than most: is it
> true that when James Bradley sold his boardwalk property to the
city
> (for one-tenth of what it was then assessed at)in 1903 that one
reason
> the city got it so cheaply ($100,000, I think) was a restriction or
> covenant "in perpetuity" that Mr. Bradley, the original Master
> Developer put on the sale? Did his restriction say that no regular
> liquor license would go to any establishment east of Ocean Avenue?
> (The license used for years by Hojo's was some sort of catering or
> special event license, I've heard.) Seems ironic that the first
liquor
> license which blatantly "violated" that Bradley restriction would
go
> to the "Master Developer" who reversed the process (private to
public,
> and now back to private)almost exactly 100 years later. And the
legal
> minds on this board might also answer the question: were the
original
> restrictions or covenants legally binding 100 years ago or now?
Would
> a Bradley decendant actually have any say in the matter? And by the
> way, how long is "perpetuity" nowadays? Just until you reach room
> temperature is my guess.
> Frank D'Alessandro
>
> "Many brave hearts are asleep in The Deep so beware, b-e-e-e-ware."
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
