Most of the future interests regarding ownership of real property are limited by the American common law. To eliminate the complex issues associated with real property, the owner is given the right to transmit, devise and to alienate the property as freely as they might find it appropriate so long as the property is under their possession. Consequently, the future of an estate is indestructible by any act in the constitution. Restraint on alienation is a provision that tends to restrict the transfer or sale of a property, either forever, or for a given period of time. In this case, Fred and Ethel entered into a restraint on alienation by visiting their attorney and prohibiting the sell or partition of the condo without the consent of the other party. However, Fred can partition and resell the condo since the restraint on alienation is invalid and thus not enforceable in the common law (Resor, (1977).
Most of the restraints on alienation are void and unenforceable unless they are reasonable. Some of the key determinants of whether a restraint on alienation is enforceable or not include the purpose of restraint, duration, and if the restraint increases or decrease the value of the property. Firstly, Fred has a very genuine reason as to why he wants to sell his share of the condo. Unfortunately, Ethel is against it and cannot afford to buy Fred out. Secondly, Ethel provides no solid reasons for not consenting to the partition request………..