Woodrick v. Wood (1994) (tearing down barn is not waste)

a.       Facts- Δ and Π were relatives. Δ had a life estate in a property, barn, while Π had a remainder interest in said barn. Δ wanted to tear down the barn, because by doing so, it would raise the value of the property. Π contended that such destruction would constitute waste. Π sued Δ for waste.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct denied injunction, but ordered Δ to pay Π the sum of $3200, IF the barn was to be torn down.

c.       Issue- Whether the holder of a remainder interest in a parcel of land may prohibit the life tenant of such property from destroying structures on the land

d.      Holding-

e.       Rule-

f.       Rationale-

g.      Notes:

                                                              i.      Waste is when you damage the property or use up the resources of the property such that a future interest holder has less of the share

                                                            ii.      Ct gave her $3200 b/c “the removal would increase the value of the property in which Woodrick had a remainder interest”