Fee; Fee Simple

Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Fee; Fee Simple

Post by editor » Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:28 am


From Black's Dictionary 2nd Edition:
  1. A freehold estate in lands, held of a superior lord, as a reward for services, and on condition of rendering some service in return for it. The true meaning of the word "fee" is the same as that of "feud" or "fief," and in its original sense it is taken in contradistinction to "allodium," which latter is defined as a man's own land, which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior. 2 Bl. Comm. 105. See Wendell v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491.

    In modern English tenures, "fee" signifies an estate of inheritance, being the highest and most extensive interest which a man can have in a feud; and when the term is used simply, without any adjunct, ot in the form "fee-simple," It Imports an absolute inheritance clear of any condition, limitation, or restriction to particular heirs, but descendible to the heirs general, male or female, lineal or collateral. 2 Bl. Comm. 106.

    {...notes omitted}
  2. The word "fee" Is also frequently used to denote the land which Is held In fee.
  3. The compass or circuit of a manor or lordship. Cowell.
  4. In American law. A fee is an estate of Inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, or transmissible to his heirs absolutely and simply. It Is an absolute estate in perpetuity, and the largest possible estate, a man can have, being, in fact, allodial in Its nature. Earnest v. Little River Land, etc., Co., 109 Tenn. 427. 75 S. W. 1122 ; Phoenix v. Emigration Com'rs, 12 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 10: United States Pipe-Line Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.,
Fee Simple

From Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition:
Fee Simple (In American law). An absolute or fee-simple estate Is one in which the owner is entitled to the entire property, with unconditional power of disposition during his life, and descending to his heirs and legal representatives upon his death intestate. Code Ga. 1882, § 2240. And see Friedman v. Stelner, 107 111. 131 ; Woodberry v. Matherson, 19 Fla. 785; Lyle v. Richards, 9 Sen?. & R. (Fa.) 374; Loventhal v. Home Ins. Co., 112 Ala. 108, 20 South. 419, 33 L. R. A. 258. 57 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; Dumont v. Dufore, 27 Ind. 207.

Fee-simple signifies a pure fee; an absolute estate of inheritance; that which a person holds inheritable to him and his heirs general forever.

It is called "fee-simple." that is, "pure," because clear of any condition or restriction to particular heirs, being descendible to the heirs general, whether male or female, lineal or collateral. It is the largest estate and most extensive interest that can be enjoyed in land, being the entire property therein, and it confers an unlimited power of alienation. Haynes v. Bourn, 42 Vt. 080.

A fee-simple is the largest estate known to the law, and where no words of qualification or limitation are added, it means an estate in possession, and owned in severalty. It is undoubtedly true that a person may own a remainder or reversion in fee. But such an estate is not a fee-simple; it is a fee qualified or limited. So, when a person owns in common with another, he does not own the entire fee, —a fee-simple; it is a fee divided or shared with another. Brackett v. Ridlou, 54 Me. 420.

Absolute and conditional. A fee simple absolute is an estate which is limited absolutely to a man and his heirs and assigns forever, without any limitation or condition. Frisby v. Ballance, 7 111. 144. At the common law, an estate in fee simple conditional was a fee limited or restrained to some particular heirs, exclusive of others. But the statute "De Donis" converted all such estates into estates tail. 2 Bl. Comm. 110.
User avatar
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Fee; Fee Simple

Post by notmartha » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:14 pm

KJV References


Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
FEE, noun [Latin pecu, pecus. From the use of cattle in transferring property, or from barter and payments in cattle, the word came to signify money; it signified also goods, substance in general. The word belongs to Class Bg, but the primary sense is not obvious.]

A reward or compensation for services; recompense, either gratuitous, or established by law and claimed of right. It is applied particularly to the reward of professional services; as the fees of lawyers and physicians; the fees of office; clerk's fees; sheriff's fees; marriage fees, etc. Many of these are fixed by law; but gratuities to professional men are also called fees.

FEE, noun [In English, is loan. This word, fee inland, or an estate in trust, originated among the descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in the south of Europe. See Feud.]

Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or lord, to be held by the grantee on condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or tenant failed to perform the conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord, or lend-lord, the lord of the loan. A fee then is any land or tenement held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and feud. All the land in England, except the crown land, is of this kind. Fees are absolute or limited. An absolute fee or fee-simple is land which a man holds to himself and his heirs forever, who are called tenants in fee simple. Hence in modern times, the term fee or fee simple denotes an estate of inheritance; and in America, where lands are not generally held of a superior, a fee or fee simple is an estate in which the owner has the whole property without any condition annexed to the tenure. A limited fee is an estate limited or clogged with certain conditions; as a qualified or base fee which ceases with the existence of certain conditions; and a conditional fee which is limited to particular heirs.

In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.

FEE'-FARM, noun [fee and farm.] A kind of tenure of estates without homage, fealty or other service, except that mentioned in the feoffment, which is usually the full rent. The nature of this tenure is, that if the rent is in arrear or unpaid for two years, the feoffer and his heirs may have an action for the recovery of the lands.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
FEE, FEODUM or FEUDUM, estates.

1. From the French, fief. A fee is an estate which may continue forever. The word fee is explained to signify that the land, or other subject of property, belongs to its owner, and is transmissible, in the case of an individual, to those whom the law appoints to succeed him, under the appellation of heirs; and in the case of corporate bodies, to those who are to take on themselves the corporate function; and from the manner in which the body is to be continued, are denominated successors. 1 Co. Litt. 1, 271, b; Wright's Ten. 147, 150; 2 Bl. Com. 104. 106; Bouv. Inst. Index h. t.

2. Estates in fee are of several sorts, and have different denominations, according to their several natures and respective qualities. They 'may with propriety be divided into, 1. Fees simple. 2 . Fees determinable. 3. Fees qualified. 4. Fees conditional and 5. Fees tail.

3. 1. A fee simple is an estate inlands or tenements which, in reference to the ownership of individuals, is not restrained to any heirs in particular, nor subject to any condition or collateral determination except the laws of escheat and the canons of descent, by which it may, be qualified, abridged or defeated. In other words, an estate in fee simple absolute, is an estate limited to a person and his heirs general or indefinite. Watk. Prin. Con. 76. And the omission of the word `his' will not vitiate the estate, nor are the words "and assigns forever" necessary to create it, although usually added. Co. Litt. 7, b 9, b; 237, b Plowd. 28, b; 29, a; Bro. Abr. Estates, 4. 1 Co. Litt. 1, b; Plowd. 557 2 Bl. Com. 104, 106 Hale's Analysis, 74. The word fee simple is sometimes used by the best writers on the law as contrasted with estates tail. 1 Co. Litt. 19. In this sense, the term comprehends all other fees as well as the estate, properly, and in strict propriety of technical language, peculiarly' distinguished by this appellation.

4. 2. A determinable fee is an estate which may continue forever. Plowd. 557; Shep. Touch. 97. It is a quality of this estate while it falls under this denomination, that it is liable to be determined by some act or event, expressed on its limitation, to circumscribe its continuance, or inferred by the law as bounding its extent. 2 Bl. Com. 109. Limitations to a man. and his heirs, till the marriage of such. a person shall take place; Cro. Jac. 593; 10 Vin. Abr. 133; till debts shall be paid; Fearne, 187 until a minor shall attain the age of twenty one years 3 Atk. 74 Ambler, 204; 9 Mod. 28 10 Vin. Abr. 203. Feariae, 342; are instances of such a determinable fee.

5. 3. Qualified fee, is an interest given on its, first limitation, to a man and to certain of his heirs, and not to extend to all of them generally, nor confined to the issue of his body. A limitation to a man and his heirs on the part of his father, affords an example of this species of estate. Litt. 254 1 Inst. 27, a 220; 1 Prest. on Estates, 449.

6. A conditional fee, in the more general acceptation of the term, is when, to the limitation of an estate a condition is annexed, which renders the estate liable to be defeated. 10 Rep. 95, b. In this application of the term, either a determinable or a qualified fee may at the same time be a conditional fee. An estate limited to a man and his heirs, to commence on the performance of a condition, is also frequently described by this appellation. Prest. on East. 476; Fearne, 9.

7. 5. As to fee tail, see Tail.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st Edition, 1891
fee blacks 1.JPG
fee blacks 1.JPG (127.37 KiB) Viewed 3721 times
fee simple blacks 1.JPG
fee simple blacks 1.JPG (96.78 KiB) Viewed 3721 times
Architectural and Building Trades Dictionary.JPG
Architectural and Building Trades Dictionary.JPG (88.92 KiB) Viewed 3570 times
Fee Simple
An interest in land. Land owned in fee simple is owned completely, without any limitations or conditions. This type of unlimited estate is called absolute. A fee simple is generally created when a deed gives the land with no conditions, usually using the words like "to John Doe" or "to John Doe and his heirs".
Contrast with more restrictive interests in land, like a life estate or fee tail.
43 U.S. Code § 859 - Fee simple to pass in all grants
Where lands have been or may hereafter be granted by any law of Congress to any one of the several States and Territories, and where such law does not convey the fee-simple title of the lands, or require patents to be issued therefor, the list of such lands which have been or may hereafter be certified by the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate, under the seal of his office, either as originals or copies of the originals or records shall be regarded as conveying the fee simple of all the lands embraced in such lists that are of the character contemplated by such Act of Congress, and intended to be granted thereby, but where lands embraced in such lists are not of the character embraced by such Acts of Congress, and are not intended to be granted thereby, the lists, so far as these lands are concerned, shall be perfectly null and void, and no right, title, claim, or interest shall be conveyed thereby.
(R.S. § 2449; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, § 403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876,60 Stat. 1100.)
12 U.S. Code § 1715z–5 - Purchase of fee simple title from lessors
(a) Authorization to insure loans for purpose of financing purchases
The Secretary is authorized, upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, to make commitments to insure and to insure loans made by financial institutions for the purpose of financing purchases by homeowners of the fee simple title to property on which their homes are located.

(b) Definitions As used in this section—
(1) the term “financial institution” means a lender approved by the Secretary as eligible for insurance under section 1703 of this title or a mortgagee approved under section 1709(b)(1) of this title; and
(2) the term “homeowner” means a lessee under a long-term ground lease.

(c) Eligibility for insurance To be eligible for insurance under this section, a loan shall—
(1) relate to property on which there is located a dwelling designed principally for a one-, two-, three-, or four-family residence;
(2) not exceed the cost of purchasing the fee simple title, or $10,000 ($30,000, if the property is located in Hawaii) per family unit, whichever is the lesser;
(3) be limited to an amount which when added to any outstanding indebtedness related to the property (as determined by the Secretary) creates a total outstanding indebtedness which does not exceed the applicable mortgage limit prescribed in section 1709(b) of this title;
(4) bear interest at such rate as may be agreed upon by the mortgagor and the mortgagee;
(5) have a maturity satisfactory to the Secretary, but not to exceed twenty years from the beginning of amortization of the loan; and
(6) comply with such other terms, conditions, and restrictions as the Secretary may prescribe.

(d) Applicability of other provisions of law
The provisions of paragraphs (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (10) of section 1715k(h) of this title shall be applicable to loans insured under this section and, as applied to loans insured under this section, references in those paragraphs to “home improvement loans” and “this subsection” shall be construed to refer to loans under this section.
(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title II, § 240, as added Pub. L. 90–448, title III, § 304(a), Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 507; amended Pub. L. 95–557, title III, § 314, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2099; Pub. L. 96–399, title III, § 333(f), Oct. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1653; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, § 404(b)(13)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1210; Pub. L. 98–479, title II, § 204(a)(10), Oct. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 2232.)
User avatar
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Fee; Fee Simple

Post by notmartha » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:29 pm

Issue the Thirtieth of Matters concerning His Lawful assembly (From The Christian Jural Society News)
A Short History of the Law of Land Titles
by John William
We have often pointed out that true title to land only comes by descent, i.e., inheritance, and not by purchase, regardless of whether or not the land was purchased by fiat currency such as Federal Reserve Notes, or whether purchased by dollars in silver.

This has been true of land titles since at least the 15th century as we see in the very important work often cited as "Coke on Littleton," the full title of which is found in The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England or, a Commentary Upon Littleton, by Sir Edward Coke, Volume One.

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) is seen as one of the three or four greatest legal minds in the last thousand years of the history of law and is equally famous for having stopped martial law in England by his Petition of Right in 1628, published against King Charles I. This fact we have also mentioned in The News on previous occasions. We have cited Coke's Petition in Non-Statutory Abatements almost from the beginning. Thus, even though Coke lived and died more than three hundred and fifty years ago, his work influences us today, and in his Institutes we find extended commentary on the works of Littleton, another English jurist that predates Coke by nearly two hundred years.
Sir Thomas de Littleton (1407-1481) wrote a massive work on English common law as it regards lands, houses, tenements, and hereditaments in a work called "Treatise on Tenures" that systematized English law as it concerns land, its acquisition, and use. This work has been called the very first textbook on the law of property which was mainly concerned with rights over land. Land law in England and America is still based, to a great extent, upon the collation of English law compiled by Littleton and explained by Coke.

Thus, the law upon which we base our research on ways to recover true title to land is at least six hundred years old, with roots that likely go even further back into the ancient customs and usages of Christian England. It is for this reason that the history of law is important, because the further we go back in time, the more likely we are to find the root and origin of law and the reasons for its existence in the first place, and the more likely it is that we will find the connection between the law of land and Scripture.

Scripture tells us what the Law is in order that we can avoid sin through the keeping of God's Law. But, Scripture does not always tell us why God does things in one way and not another. In these cases, He has left us the task of figuring out why His Law is written the way it is, and He has left the implementation of His Law to the Christian. It is this implementation of God's Law in which man works out his salvation "in fear and trembling," and it is the implementation which, over time, becomes Our custom and usage, which is also known as the lex non scripta, the unwritten or common law of all Good and Lawful Christians throughout the world.

Coke, of course, does not deal in this work in Volume I of the Institutes with fiat currency. It is assumed that all money used in the purchase of land is based on English coinage, usually pounds sterling, i.e., silver.
In the Institutes, Coke treats Littleton's previous work very systematically and logically and, in Part One, he sets forth a series of charts that illustrate the connections between the various parts of land law and how one part or action follows upon another.

"Littleton's treatise was written in that peculiar dialect compounded of Norman-French and English phrases called law French. Although it had been provided by a statute of 36 Edward III, that viva voce proceedings in court should not longer be conducted in the French tongue, 'which was much unknown in the realm,' the practice of reporting proceedings in that language, and of using it in legal treatises, lingered till a much later period, and was at length prohibited by a statute passed in the time of the Commonwealth in 1650." The Encyclopedia Brittanica: a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, and General Information, Published by Encyclopedia Britannica, New York, 342 Madison Avenue. Eleventh Edition, 1911.

Littleton's original work borrows nothing from the sources of Roman civil law or the commentators. He dealt exclusively with English law as it was in his day. Coke translated a good deal of Littleton's work into English to assist readers and often presents, in very few words, an entire overview of land law.

Thus, in summarizing the whole of land law in England in Littleton's time, Coke says:

"...every man that hath a fee simple, hath it either by right or by wrong. If by right, then he hath it either by purchase or descent. If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion, abatement, usurpation,& c. L.1 C.1 Sect. 1. 2.a."

Coke then proceeded to explain the various ways and means of acquiring land by all the above methods and also explains which is the strongest title to land and gives the reasons why.

Clearly, in the above cite, Coke asserts that the only right ways to own land are by purchase or descent, i.e., inheritance. All other ways, which including acts that range from actions in a court to outright usurpation or seizure by conquest, are wrong ways to hold land. Indeed, Coke clearly states just prior to the above cite that:

"For a disseisor, abator, intruder, usurper, &c, [*may] have a fee simple, but it is not a lawfull fee. L1. C.1. Sect. 1. 2a." [*Insertion added].

This helps to explain why, if the I.R.S. or Sheriff seizes land, houses, tenements, and hereditaments, they will not guarantee true title to the new land "owner" after the land is re-sold.

Just as clearly, the right ways to hold land are fully consistent with the Law of God and all other ways are contrary to the Law of God.

Coke then proceeds to tell us who can purchase lands, houses, tenements, or hereditaments:

"Persons capable of purchase are of two sorts, persons natural created of God,... and persons incorporate or politique created by the policy of man (and therefore called bodies politique); and those be of two sorts, viz. Either sole, or aggregate of many: again, aggregate of many, either of all persons capable, or of one person capable, and the rest incapable or dead in law ... Some men have capacitie to purchase, but not abilitie to hold: some, capacity to purchase, and ability to hold or not to hold, at the election of them or others: some, capacitie to take and to hold: some, neither capacitie to take nor to hold: and some, especially disabled to take some particular thing." L.1. C.1. Sect.1. 2a.

The corporation sole was usually either the King, a bishop, or member of royalty who formed a corporation of just one person. Today, this type of corporation no longer exists in America and the nearest equivalent to it would be the formation of a Limited Corporation which may be owned by one man but governed by a Board of Directors of at least three persons.

Note also that a body politic is created by the "policy of men" and that such a corporation is grouped as an "aggregate" corporation along with all other corporations that have many owners or stock-holders. In America, the body politic is owned by the people within the jurisdiction of the body politic--at least in theory.

The only alternative to a government created by the policy of men, is a government created under and controlled by, the Law of God, the possibility of which neither Coke nor Littleton considers in their works. The reason why is, both Coke and Littleton were dealing with the law of England as it actually was and not theoretically, as it should be. Thus, in Coke's commentary on Littleton there is virtually no discussion of God's Law as it applied to the law of England, and yet, it is clear that the law of the land was based, at least in the common law, on Scripture to a great extent.

Apparently, by the time Littleton wrote his Treatise on Tenures and Coke wrote his commentary on Littleton, the law was already considered something separate from the authority of Scripture and the Law of God.

In other words, less than three hundred years had elapsed since the commentaries of Bracton and Phillip of Salisbury with their heavy reliance on the Canon law of Christianity, and already the root and ground of law had been lost. But, this should not surprise us, since in America, it took somewhat less time for the Americans to lose their Biblical roots of law.

At any rate, Coke then follows his listing of those who may purchase with examples of why they cannot hold:

"If an alien Christian or infidel purchase houses, lands, tenements, or hereditaments to him and his heires, albeit he can have no heires, yet he is of capacitie to take a fee simple but not to hold." Ibid.

Thus, if an alien Christian or infidel purchases houses, lands, tenements, or hereditaments for himself and his heirs - but if neither has a Lawful heir - they cannot hold their purchase. The land then reverts to the king upon the king's service of an office found in the case of an alien Christian. If the infidel dies without heir, the land automatically reverts to the king and no action on an office found is necessary. In some cases, however, the land will revert to the original owner and not the king, whether an office found is made or not, especially in the case of an infidel.

A corporation sole can take land, houses, tenements, and hereditaments as we mentioned above, by purchase, but unless some special provision is made in the purchase or in the articles of incorporation, the corporation sole cannot hold. And it makes no difference if the corporation sole is ecclesiastical or temporal, the law treats all in the same manner.

If the land or house, and/or its habitation is leased for commercial purposes by an infidel, the king shall have it for the term of the lease and no longer. In sum, an alien infidel has few rights in land, houses, tenements or hereditaments, and though he may take by purchase, he will, in many cases, have a difficult time holding it.

Coke also discusses attaintment of blood and which, in American law, has no relevance. As to:

"An infant or minor (whom we call any that is under the age of 21 yeares) hath, without consent of any other, capacity to purchase, for it is intended for his benefit, and at his full age he may either agree thereunto, and perfect it, or without any cause to be alleged, waive or disagree to the purchase; and so may his heirs after him, if he agreed not thereunto after his full age." Ibid.

Coke then discusses briefly, the rights of those of unsound mind, those physically deformed, a wife (excluding the Queen), parishioners, church-wardens, a bastard, and others on their rights to purchase or not to purchase land and their various abilities to hold or not to hold. He states that lands purchased at rates of interest amounting to usury are void and contracts for the same cannot be enforced.

Of course, the laws on usury cannot be enforced against anything but Lawful money, such as dollars in silver. Thus, one advantage for the lenders in lending fictitious money, whether in Federal Reserve Notes or merely in debit entries, is that they avoid actions based upon violations of the laws of usury.

It is clear from Coke's discussion that all those who purchase land, as opposed to those who inherit it, purchase only a limited title for a limited period of time, usually the life of the purchaser, or for a specific term, and then the land either passes to the heirs, or reverts to the king or original land-owner under certain conditions.

Thus, Our original premise, that true title to land only passes by inheritance is still valid and even the great Coke and Littleton confirm it by all they say. Coke then passes to a discussion of the land itself and what will pass with the land and how the land contract should be written if the land is acquired by purchase.

In the general sense, then:

"Land, Terra in the legal signification, comprehendeth any ground, soile, or earth whatsoever; as meadows, pastures, woods, moores, waters, marishes, furses, and heath.... It legally includeth also castles, houses, and other buildings: for castles, houses, &c. consist upon two things, viz. Land or ground, as the foundation or structure thereupon; so as passing the land or ground, the structure or building thereupon passeth therewith." Ibid.

But, from the discussion that follows on the next few pages in this section, we learn that the more detailed a description of the rights conveyed in a land purchase, the more likely it is that all or part of the land can be attacked, by a subsequent action or claim in court, from the original land purchase contract even years after the sale of the land is made. This is true even down to specifying the types of trees that may exist on the land at the time of purchase.
Thus, it is best that in any purchase agreement for land, the contract must be structured in as broad and general a manner as possible. The wording should therefore state that all land lying within the defined boundaries of the close, and all houses and appurtenances thereto with all plants of every kind and description along with all land that lies beneath any rivers, streams, lakes, etc., that cross or enter into the land, and all minerals or metals found beneath the surface of the land is included in the purchase agreement. If one begins to get specific by using words such as except, excluding, etc., one gets specific and opens the door to later attacks on one's title to whatever lies within the boundaries of the close.

Remember, a close is any area of land defined by law, not by survey, plat map, official government map such as a U.S.G.S. topographic map, or fences of any kind. The close is located, usually, by reference to some natural, physical feature of land such as a mountain top, a large rock promontory, the junction of known streams, and so on. In other words, keep it simple and all inclusive. Though not a hard and fast rule, keep the purchase agreement to about two or three pages. Any more and you may be tempted to get into details that will later hang you out to dry.

Throughout Coke's work the Scriptures are freely used as law and cited as part of God's Law and Christianity. But, even though there is often a verse cite in the margin of the work, there are no quote marks at the beginning and end of where the words of the Bible are used and no other marks to indicate where the verse begins and ends, and where Coke's commentary takes up. Coke uses and integrates the words, verses, and phrases of the Scripture as if they were his own. All one can do is look up the cite that is sometimes paraphrased and not cited explicitly.

He also uses freely, Christian concepts and ideas or doctrines of Christianity without, again, marking or indicating them as such. They are simply part of Coke's normal language as a commentator on Littleton.

Coke spends many pages on defining single words used in the English common law and in these definitions one can almost see the Biblical verses that lay behind his definitions.
Post Reply