Do you think this will be enforceable? I've seen deeds in Lawton that say that the land cannot be occupied by non-whites. No one has ever tried to enforce these that I'm aware off.
The ones that are enforceable in town are mostly of the reversionary deeds. We have these to the city for parks and they state that if the land is not used as a park (and usually states a number of years) then the property reverts back to the original owner or heirs.
This seems sorta close in that regard since it details a specific usage and whoever bought the land agreed to the deed and contract of sale.
I would say that it is. No biggie though, they buy the church out and they buy out the heirs of the land. Since 1912, surely there are like 100 heirs by now and it should be much of a stretch to get 100 people to all think the same way and all want the same money. I wouldn't think that anyone would be a hold out on something like this. It's progress, right?
😉
It's tough to tell from most news reports all the details. It sounds like the current owners want to sell to CVS and that some 'outside' groups not actually affiliated with the church are the ones trying to prevent the pharmacy from building.
We have groups like that in parts of historic Lawton that really put up a fight when someone paints in the color or otherwise changes something on your property. Sorta like some of the over zealous neighborhood associations.
The article did not state if the church was in fact still being used or was just a vacant church.
This case is most likely enforceable as it was a condition of sale agreed to by the purchaser.
Definitely Enforceable Deed Restriction
It is possible the grantors have no direct heirs.
In many such cases the church that can longer make a go of it just gifts the facility to a new beginning congregation of almost any faith.
Paul in PA
Probably enforceable. The restrictions against "non-whites" violate civil rights and were, thankfully, outlawed at the federal level decades ago. This is different.
I believe the courts can generally alter the terms of such restrictions if they were based on facts no longer relevant or if the current facts could not have been anticipated by the original grantors. Thus CVS would be in better shape if the deed required that the parcel be used as a telegraph office or to sell 8-track tapes. Nothing obsolete (or unconstitutional) about a house of worship.
CVS could perhaps buy off the known descendants and neutralize the rest with a quiet title suit. But it would probably take only one recalcitrant descendant to stop them. There's likely an eminent domain approach too -- as per Kelo v. City of New London, it could be argued that the change is in the public interest as CVS, unlike the church, will pay taxes (I don't like this but it's the law). One way or the other CVS should get out its checkbook.
Deral
I don't know if you remember when I-240 was first built in OKC (specifically south of S.W. 29th.). The City of Oklahoma City donated all the parks that straddled the old "Grand Boulevard" to the State, for construction of the Interstate.
Low and behold there was a deed dedication from the '20s that stated if the property was ever used for anything other than a city park, title would revert to the family (or heirs) that donated it originally.
The court eventually (spelled a p p e a l) ruled for the family, but since there was already six lanes of interstate built, the family only received monetary compensation. Reversionary deed restrictions are usually upheld in court.
Deral
I remember that Paden. While at the city I had to bring the revision clause to their attention more than once when they thought about selling a park or using it for some other use if this was on the deed. Of course, those were originally dedicated to the city so we are the only owner in trust since the fact.
I'd be curious if this church is wanting to sell to CVS and only some neighborhood group is complaining about the sale to CVS.
Deral
We cannot discern from the short article if the church itself is in favor of the sale. Perhaps they want to sell and build a new church with the proceeds. That would be a lateral transfer of usage but the deed wording would still remain in the records.
And since this is a blighted area (from some of the replies to the news feed) then perhaps they have already occupied another structure.
Deral
If I were counsel (for either CVS or the Church) I would suggest leasing the property to CVS to build their retail store, AND build a small alter in the corner of the property for worship. $ee? Everybody happy!
Deral- Parties of interest
I wonder if non-affiliated people could be considered parties of interest in this case.
Here is an article with more details,
The Church had a small congregation and was no longer viable as a church so they merged with another church in East Memphis. The Methodist will gain 2.3 million from the sale and they are in full support of the sale.
Only the local Preservation Society is against the sale and ultimate demise of the building. Apparently the building is on the National Historic List but has remained vacant.
>
> Only the local Preservation Society is against the sale and ultimate demise of the building. Apparently the building is on the National Historic List but has remained vacant.
It will depend upon the reason why it is on the Natl Historic List.
My office building is on the Natl Hist. List of Reg. Places from the U. S. Dept of the Interior but I think it could be demolished with no problem but probably another building similar in nature would be built.
Does not matter what the Church wants to do. There is a conditional clause in the deed.
Maybe the heirs (if any) will extinguish the clause or maybe they will seek to retain ownership.
Something similar happened here with some property donated to the school board years ago for a school.
Nice building. People are going to miss them when they are gone for a Walgreen.
If you punch 2132 Union ave., Memphis, Tenn. into Google Earth I think you can see the place.
I still think the heirs and descendants of the grantors will have to weigh in. But only in relation to the title problem. And I suspect that money will resolve it.
Wow!. That is a big church. The grounds and building look pretty well kept up in my opinion and the area certainly does not look blighted like some from Memphis have said.
There is an Applebee's just down the street.
Certainly an interesting case of "show me the money".
There being a clause in the deed about the property reverting to the original family should bring them into the case unless they are not interested in a few million dollars.
Unless the building has some real structural problems, destroying it would be senseless because it is already historical correct.
Can be sure that CVS will not build the appropriate style of historic building.
It looks like the historical building looks like the square footprint on the corner.
The rest looks like add-ons later. reception hall, community center class rooms etc.
So tear down the later additions and
It would make a good Church of the Bar B Q, IMO.
