Hahn v. Hagar

153 A.D.3d 105 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps, Thomas G. Hahn, Jr., Jeanne Halstead, and Barbara Butts, and Johanne Hagar (D) are siblings. At issue is a 101-acre farm, known as the 'Hahn Farm.' The property was owned jointly by their parents until their father's death in 1995, and then solely by the parties' mother, Edna Hahn, until her death on November 28, 2007. Ps, Thomas G. Hahn, Jr., Jeanne Halstead, and Barbara Butts, and Johanne Hagar (D) are siblings. At issue is a 101-acre farm, known as the 'Hahn Farm.' located in the Town of Pleasant Valley, Dutchess County. The property was owned jointly by their parents until their father's death in 1995, and then solely by the parties' mother, Edna Hahn, until her death on November 28, 2007. Edna Hahn's will conferred a life estate to Thomas G. Hahn, Jr., with the intention that he be permitted to continue to farm such real property and use such improvements for the remainder of his life or for such period of time as he otherwise elects. Upon his death or if he elects to cease farming said property prior to his death, all the real property and related improvements were to be devised to her children, Barbara Butts, Johanne Hagar, Jeanne Halstead, and Thomas G. Hahn, Jr., in equal share per stirpes. Ps became interested in permanently preserving the property as farmland and restricting its future development by selling some or all of the property's development rights or, in the alternative, placing a conservation easement over some or all of the property. D refused and Ps commenced this action. Under RPAPL 1602, the owner of a possessory interest in real property, such as a life estate, may apply to the court for an order directing that the 'real property, or a part thereof, be mortgaged, leased or sold.' A court is authorized to grant an application pursuant to RPAPL 1602 if it is satisfied that the requested relief is 'expedient' (RPAPL 1604). D testified that a sale of the development rights was contrary to their mother's will, which specified that the property would go to the four siblings as tenants in common if their brother ceased farming or died. D proposed carving out a piece of the property for her so that Ps could then use the remaining property as they saw fit, but Ps rejected this offer. The Supreme Court determined that development rights do not constitute real property, or a part thereof, for purposes of RPAPL 1602. The court directed the dismissal of the cause of action pursuant to RPAPL 1602. Ps appealed.