Bridges v. United States

The court held that the conveyance of the conservation easement and the proposed donation of the fee interest did not trigger the right of first refusal, as these were not 'sales.'

The trial court granted Palumbo's and the Town's motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Connecticut's conservation easement enabling statute and common law of standing.

The Bankruptcy Court held for the landowner, noting that the easement restricted further division or subdivision, but not the separate conveyance of an already divided portion of the protected property.

The trial court held that landowner did not terminate the Highway Easement so the highway easement passed to the County with the taking and even if not in effect, the conservation easement did not prohibit the right to use the road and river crossing.

The appellate court reversed, holding that the termination provision was triggered only upon the conveyance of the fee interest in the property.

The Court of Federal Claims denied NRCS's motion to dismiss, holding that Telzrow could bring a breach of contract action. At the same time, the court dismissed the attempt to nullify the easement.

The trial court, looking to treatises, held that a conservation easement is not a possessory interest or an ownership interest. Therefore, its conveyance did not destroy any joint tenancy. Furthermore, because the defendants assented to plaintiff's claim that the easement rendered physical division of the property impracticable, the court agreed without analysis.

The Tax Court held that the conservation easement was not a 'qualified real property interest' because the substitution provision allowed the grantor to change the protected property and thus the easement was not 'granted in perpetuity' under I.R.C. 170(h)(2)(C).

The court held that a 100-foot setback zone was to be measured horizontally, not vertically (over the face of the Earth), based on Maine common law. The court entered a default judgment for the United States, requiring the removal of the platform.

The trial court held that the 2002 release and amended deed were of no effect because under the 1972 deed Tuccio gave up all interest in the property. The court further held that UMIFA only applies where the donor retains some interest in the gifted property.