In a message dated 9/25/2003 12:29:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, primitivebynature@msn.com writes: > Thanks to all who responded to my question regarding the reversion > inheritance. I have two documents that speak to this issue....the first is > a lease. The second is the release of the lease. One took place one day, > the release of the lease the next day. I think from what everyone has said, > > is that if my ancestor did not fulfill the lease and died, the property > would have gone back to the previous owner, not the heirs of my ancestor. > However, the next day when he paid off the lease, the property was free and > clear to him, his heirs, assigns, etc. > > One issue I have is that both documents clearly mention two ancestors John > and George in the beginning....but only John at the end of the documents > when they say that John's heirs, assigns, executors, administrators, etc > would have title to the property. George or his heirs are not mentioned at > all. Isn't that odd? > Above you address lease and release, but nothing about reversion, which is different. As someone else wrote, the lease and release practice dates from England, but was the purpose was essentally ignored in the colonies where it was a tax dodge. Rather than have an outright sale of property, the exchange would be a lease (somewhat like a modern day lease with right to buy) with a partial payment followed immediately by a release of the property to the lessee after payment of the balance due. I have seen them dated the same day with the same witnesses, but usually there was a days difference which doesn't mean they weren't written, signed and witnessed at the same time. Consider the two documents as one. Relative to John and George, I surmise that both are mentioned first as descendants, but the property was to go to John. This may have been a legal point in case anything happened to John. I think enough has been said about a reversion. Bill Stribling