Who is suing whom for what?
Plaintiffs (residents and taxpayers of Ocean City) are suing the Defendants (owners of the relevant land (Stoeco) and the City government of Ocean City)
--seeking to have certain resolutions of the City extending the time for performance of certain conditions in the deed declared invalid
--and an order declaring that the land shall be forfeited and returned to the City.
And the issue is whether the City conveyed a Fee Simple Determinable or a Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent to Stoeco in the 1951 deed.
What was the significance in this case concerning which of the two estates had been conveyed to Stoeco?
Since the stated restriction had already occurred before the additional time was extended by the City—i.e., Stoeco failed to fill and grade the land within the 1-year time limit—if the deed created a Fee Simple Determinable, automatic forfeiture had already occurred and Stoeco’s interest failed.
The City had a Fee Simple Absolute back, and a time waiver would not be effective. The proper method of proceeding would be to re-convey the property to Stoeco via a new deed, but under the N.J. Constitution it would be unlawful to do so without consideration. P. 285
But notice if the original deed conveyed a Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent, forfeiture is optional not automatic. The City would be able to agree to postpone exercising its Power of Termination to allow Stoeco additional time to meet the conditions set forth in the deed.
So, what interest did the 1951 deed create—a FSD or a FSSCS?
