Re: [AsburyPark] Re: The Ghost of Mr. Bradley strikes again

2007-01-16 Thread GG518
I have looked into this matter being that my father is one of the  heirs. I 
have made contact several times with the law firm handling this. I have  asked 
for a document package but they have not returned my calls or sent me any  
documentation. It would be interesting to see who has given them the power of  
attorney to handle these matters on behalf of the Bradley estate.
Any suggestions would be helpful in regards to this.
 
Feel free to e mail me privately.
 
Garrett Giberson Jr.


[AsburyPark] Re: The Ghost of Mr. Bradley strikes again

2007-01-16 Thread oakdorf
-I thought your family signed off on whatever they had to years back.?



 
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/
 


[AsburyPark] Re: The Ghost of Mr. Bradley strikes again

2007-01-15 Thread justifiedright
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 

[AsburyPark] Re: The Ghost of Mr. Bradley strikes again

2007-01-15 Thread dfsavgny
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, justifiedright 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 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.

Notwithstanding what you cite, the covenant has to be specified 
to run with the land. However, you would be surprised what in fact 
has been deemed to be binding after many, many years.

 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.

Yeah, I hear some local attorney has power of attorney for agroup of 
them and signs things away over the years williynilly. Sounds Fishy 
to me.
 
 The Bradley heirs no longer have a claim to enforce anything to the 
 beachfront.

You might be surprised to hear that some are looking into that issue.




 
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/
 


[AsburyPark] Re: The Ghost of Mr. Bradley strikes again

2007-01-15 Thread dfsavgny
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, justifiedright 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 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.

Notwithstanding what you cite, the covenant has to be specified 
to run with the land. However, you would be surprised what in fact 
has been deemed to be binding after many, many years.

 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.

Yeah, I hear some local attorney has power of attorney for agroup of 
them and signs things away over the years williynilly. Sounds Fishy 
to me.
 
 The Bradley heirs no longer have a claim to enforce anything to the 
 beachfront.

You might be surprised to hear that some are looking into that issue.




 
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/