The Power of the Rule Against Perpetuities

 Okay, this may be of interest only to the lawyers, and none of them read this blog.

NPR is where I got the news about Disney sticking their fingers in DeSantis' eyes: Disney blocked DeSantis' oversight board. What happens next?

 The newly appointed board was sitting for its second official meeting on Wednesday when it announced it had made a discovery: It might not be able to carry out the agenda it planned.

Nineteen days before DeSantis signed the final bill, the former board had signed agreements with Disney essentially stripping the board of power and handing that power back to Disney.

Called a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, the measure allows Disney to have the final say on any alterations to the property and requires the board to inform Disney of plans for such alterations without conditions or delays.

Basically, the board loses "the majority of its ability to do anything beyond maintain the roads and maintain basic infrastructure," as board member Ron Peri put it, according to local news outlet Click Orlando.

And, in an extra detail that the internet is devouring, the term of the agreement was set using the "Rule Against Perpetuities" — which states that a policy will continue until after a certain person dies.

In this case, the declaration will continue "until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III." DeSantis, after all, frequently refers to Walt Disney World as a "corporate kingdom."

The Rule Against Perpetuities is not new, and Wikipedia has as good an explanation as I got in law school:

The rule against perpetuities is a legal rule in the common law that prevents people from using legal instruments (usually a deed or a will) to exert control over the ownership of private property for a time long beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written. Specifically, the rule forbids a person from creating future interests (traditionally contingent remainders and executory interests) in property that would vest beyond 21 years after the lifetimes of those living at the time of creation of the interest, often expressed as a "life in being plus twenty-one years". In essence, the rule prevents a person from putting qualifications and criteria in a deed or a will that would continue to affect the ownership of property long after he or she has died, a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand" or "mortmain".

Governor DeSantis ought to have learned this when he went to Harvard Law School. What this does is keep Disney in control 21 years after all of King Charles III's children die, and the youngest, Princess Lilibet of Sussex, is not yet 2 years old. If Lilibet lives as long as Queen Elizabeth, then Disney loses control in approximately 115 years.

One thing I do not understand is how DeSantis missed this. Was he too concerned about his un-campaign for President or in banning books, or just preening for cameras, in general?

As far as power moves go, this one does appear to be above board. A detailed note about the Restrictive Covenant clause was recorded in the Feb. 8 Reedy Creek agenda and meeting minutes. A day later, the agreement was registered with the Orange County Comptroller.

All of those documents were, and still are, available online, no public records request needed. Anyone could've attended the old board's meeting on Feb. 8. (There were no public comments on the measure, which the board unanimously approved.)

And, yet, no one seemed to notice — or if they did, they didn't raise an alarm. Not the new board, not the governor, not the legislators or the reporters actively monitoring developments (guilty). 

What I think is the Florida Republicans suffer from what all Republicans suffer from, but which in the MAGA strain has become their overwhelming trait: bloviation instead of governance.

Yes, it will not end here.

"The Executive Office of the Governor is aware of Disney's last-ditch efforts to execute contracts just before ratifying the new law," said Communications Director Taryn Fenske in a statement shared with other outlets. "An initial review suggests these agreements may have significant legal infirmities that would render contracts void as a matter of law."

Any bets on whether Disney or the State of Florida has the better lawyers?

sch