A typical case I read at school in Property is from Tennessee in the 1920s and involves cousins fighting over dead relatives' land. Yes, cue the banjos. Anyhow, last week I was reading my Property textbook and came across a case called City of Palm Springs v. Living Desert Reserve, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859 (Ct. App. 1999). It was exciting to see something from the desert, and it's kind of a funny case, so I thought I'd share. Here's what happened.

The McCallum Desert Foundation gave 30 acres of land to the City of Palm Springs. The property was given fully with one restriction: "In the event that the property is not used solely for and perpetually as the site of the McCallum Desert Reserve and Equestrian Center, then the land and premises ... shall pass to the Living Desert Reserve, Palm Desert, California." So basically, PS had to make a giant horse stable, or the Living Desert got title instead. Well, PS had a different idea. It wanted to expand the municipal golf course (now Tahquitz Creek Golf Resort. Huge surprise, right?

In this case, PS had what's called present property interest because it possessed the 30 acres. Living Desert had a future property interest since it would get the land if PS violated the horse stable requirement. Property interests (present or future) can be condemned and taken by a government. Usually this is done to tear down abandoned buildings, make way for roads, etc. Check out what PS decided to do.

PS condemned Living Desert's future interest in the property. The result was that PS had its present interest in the 30 acres, and since PS didn't use it for a horse stable, the property would no longer transfer to Living Desert because PS now owned the future interest also. Then PS could make a golf course or do whatever the hell it wanted with the land. McCallum's gift requirement was totally voided by PS.

What's even worse is that PS tried to screw Living Desert out of paying for its interest in the land, too. When a government condemns and takes property, it has to pay fair market value for what it takes. But PS claimed that the value of Living Desert's future interest was nothing since the chance of PS violating the original horse stable restriction was so tiny -- despite the fact that PS was condemning the land so that they didn't have to use it for a stable!

Anyhow, the CA courts saw through the charade. They said that, while the PS move was legal, it was against public policy to allow them to get away with not paying for it. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would ever donate to a city again because the city could turn around and screw the grantor with no consequence. PS had to pay Living Desert the full value of the 30 acres.