American Prairie Reserve Purchases 14,000 Acre Ranch

[seeth07]

The landowner gets to craft all provisions. If they refuse to place perpetuity in the language or they allow surface mining, it will restrict their income tax deductibility. But, it will still reduce the value for estate tax purposes.

I have seen some of the most creative landowner ideas you can imagine. Like all demographics, there are landowners who don't buy into the fear mongering and they see conservation easements as a great tool for certain objectives they have. They use all tools available to them and they succeed in their ranching/farming business. They are smart folks and they know how to find success in all they do.

Then there are the predatory fear mongers like UPOM who have nothing to sell other than fear and conspiracy. In the process they hope nobody undresses them and show what anti-property rights positions they are willing to promote to continue their path of fear-based misinformation.

Ranching/farming is hard, it's challenging, and the deck is stacked against the small guy. UPOM does no favors by trying to take away conservation easements as one of the useful tools working landowners have. And to reaffirm the answer to your question - the landowner, the holder of the property rights, drives the ship on conservation easement language and provisions, not the government, not the public, and not the non-profit that might hold the rights donated/sold as part of the easement.

My question isn't directly related to conservation easements or anything of the like but more generally about what an easement is. Like for example: I'm a landowner of about 80 acres. As an extreme example, could I craft an easement that says "No person that has ever claimed residence in Illinois is ever allowed to step foot on the property (because you know - WI doesn't like people from IL) in perpetuity"

 

[Big Fin]

My question isn't directly related to conservation easements or anything of the like but more generally about what an easement is. Like for example: I'm a landowner of about 80 acres. As an extreme example, could I craft an easement that says "No person that has ever claimed residence in Illinois is ever allowed to step foot on the property (because you know - WI doesn't like people from IL) in perpetuity"

Yes, as landowner, you can alter a deed in any manner you choose. It will usually diminish your property values, so there would need to be a compelling case for doing such.

I know of deeds in Montana that are restricted where the property cannot be sold to certain family members, or an entity that family member is a part of. That family member pissed off the wrong person. Thus, the deed is restricted, and not for any financial reasons.

The landowner has rights to alter, encumber, and muddy the title to property they own. They hold the cards. It is rare anyone would do it, but it is a right of the landowner to do so.

 

[seeth07]

The landowner has rights to alter, encumber, and muddy the title to property they own. They hold the cards. It is rare anyone would do it, but it is a right of the landowner to do so.

unless its written in "perpetuity" right? If a landowner creates it with that word, any future landowners can't decide to alter or change it correct?

 

[Big Fin]

unless its written in "perpetuity" right? If a landowner creates it with that word, any future landowners can't decide to alter or change it correct?

Maybe, depending upon state law. A new landowner takes the property subject to the terms of any deed restrictions at the time of sale.

Under most states, perpetual deed alterations are when one of the property rights (bundle of sticks) has been separated from the bundle and sold/donated to another entity/person. Thus, the new owner is not getting all of the property rights when buying encumbered property due to some of those rights still held by another owner.

In your example of restricting access to anyone from Illinois, you really haven’t separated that property right and sold/donated to another party. Wisconsin property law would dictate how enforceable that is if a subsequent owner decides to change that restriction.

 

[seeth07]

Maybe, depending upon state law. A new landowner takes the property subject to the terms of any deed restrictions at the time of sale.

Under most states, perpetual deed alterations are when one of the property rights (bundle of sticks) has been separated from the bundle and sold/donated to another entity/person. Thus, the new owner is not getting all of the property rights when buying encumbered property due to some of those rights still held by another owner.

In your example of restricting access to anyone from Illinois, you really haven’t separated that property right and sold/donated to another party. Wisconsin property law would dictate how enforceable that is if a subsequent owner decides to change that restriction.

Property rights are so confusing! I can only imagine how many other landowners out there know just as little as me or even less about things like this. It's no wonder why groups like the above post can brainwash them so easily!

 

[Nameless Range]

The landowner gets to craft all provisions. If they refuse to place perpetuity in the language or they allow surface mining, it will restrict their income tax deductibility. But, it will still reduce the value for estate tax purposes.

I have seen some of the most creative landowner ideas you can imagine. Like all demographics, there are landowners who don't buy into the fear mongering and they see conservation easements as a great tool for certain objectives they have. They use all tools available to them and they succeed in their ranching/farming business. They are smart folks and they know how to find success in all they do.

Then there are the predatory fear mongers like UPOM who have nothing to sell other than fear and conspiracy. In the process they hope nobody undresses them and show what anti-property rights positions they are willing to promote to continue their path of fear-based misinformation.

Ranching/farming is hard, it's challenging, and the deck is stacked against the small guy. UPOM does no favors by trying to take away conservation easements as one of the useful tools working landowners have. And to reaffirm the answer to your question - the landowner, the holder of the property rights, drives the ship on conservation easement language and provisions, not the government, not the public, and not the non-profit that might hold the rights donated/sold as part of the easement.

Here’s a question about some thing pertinent to a land donation I am currently involved with.

Could a land owner encumber their property in such a way that prohibits the transfer of that property after they donate it to whoever they want? A sort of negative easement of transfer, prohibiting the contingent to which the land is being given to from ever changing ownership of it for as long as that contingent exists?

It’s a weird question for a unique situation.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Keep in mind with all these questions, that a conservation easement has to be held by an organization that is committing its resources to monitoring and stewarding that easement long-term. So, whatever terms you dream up have to be agreeable to that organization and its goals, not to mention its accreditation requirements. So, there are practical limits.