Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

The breach of a condition subsequent does not cause title to revert automatically to the grantor or his heirs, and the use of judicial proceedings to enforce a resulting power to terminate is governed by the statute of limitations in C.R.S.1963, 118-8-4. Wolf v. Hallenbeck, 109 Colo. 70, 123 P.2d 412. C.R.S.1963, 118-8-4, provided that no action may be maintained, 'to enforce the terms of any restriction concerning real property . . . . unless said action be commenced within one year from the date of the violation for which the action is sought to be brought or maintained.' 

The holder of a right of entry, following a continuing breach of condition, is not entitled to endlessly sit by refusing to declare a forfeiture, and thus control the use of the property indefinitely. An appropriate rule to meet such a contingency, together with the reasons for the rule, is succinctly propounded in Simes & Smith, The Law of Future Interests § 258, p. 310, as follows:

'However, the mere fact that the statute of limitations begins to run in favor of the grantee on the grantor's election to forfeit and not on the grantee's breach ...

Register or login to access full content