In chronological order:
Owner A (company) grants to the State the right to main a tower as long as it is equipped and maintained for a specific purpose, in the event that the use of the tower is discontinued then the rights granted shall cease and revert to the Grantor. The State has the right to remove all equipment within 90 days after said station has been discontinued.
Owner A sells to Owner B with the exception of the rights of the state in maintaining the tower referencing the first transaction
Owner C sells to my client (owner D) with the same exception
State discontinues use of tower - no equipment removed
30 years later
Owner D still holds the property
Owner A is still in existence
Who owns the tower?
30 years is far longer than 90 days for removal of the tower. Question: Was the right that was retained to actually own whatever equipment was left or simply to be able to use it? Legal question would be who gets sued if the tower blows over and damages some other person or their property. I bet the State would deny any culpability.
Right was to "erect and maintain" State built the tower and furnished it to the best of my knowledge
>exception of the rights of the state in maintaining the tower
That sounds like just acknowledging an easement while selling all rights in the property to the subsequent owner, including reversionary rights.
It may depend on the precise wording and circumstances. Was there any obvious reason at the time that A would have wanted to retain the tower? If there wasn't any specific land defined, then it seems unlikely that they expected to own the tower.
Ask a l*wyer for an expert opinion.
A couple of things come to mind.
- Was the original "conveyance" and easement to erect a tower? Or was it for the fee ownership of a parcel of land. I'm guessing it was an easement.
- I think it would be safe to assume that the reversionary rights go with the land, not the owner of the land at some point in the past. But then this is how lawyers make a living.
> A couple of things come to mind.
>
> - Was the original "conveyance" and easement to erect a tower? Or was it for the fee ownership of a parcel of land. I'm guessing it was an easement.
>
> - I think it would be safe to assume that the reversionary rights go with the land, not the owner of the land at some point in the past. But then this is how lawyers make a living.
Mr. Ingram has it correctly. It sounds like a right of use, which is an easement. The easement rights, or rights of use, run with the land, or are appurtenant. Therefore, unless specifically excepted by Owner A in his conveyance to Owner B, all rights, title and interest go to the successor in title.