|
<br />r C) {} 6
<br />,/,0-
<br />.-'
<br /> e
<br />~- - -_. -- - _.~._-- - ----,- - +
<br /> ,-- -- --- ---- - - - . -,-
<br /> CONTRARY AUTHORITY HOLDS THAT AN ALI'ENATION RESULTS fROM ANY VOLU~TA~Y TRANSfER Of AN "I
<br /> INTEREST'IN 'LAND, AS DISTINGUISHED fROM TRANSfERS BY OPERATION Of LAW, AS, fOR EXAMPLE,
<br /> PASSING Of TITLE BY TESTATE OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION. RATHBUN V. ALLEN, 7 A20 273; 275,
<br /> 63 R.I. ~09, AND OTHERS.
<br /> (A)' FROM THE ,fOREGOING AUTHORITIES I TIS CONCL~DED 'BY THI S Offl,CE. THAT AN ABSOLUTE
<br /> DEED GIVING ALL RIGHT, TI TLE AND INTEREST, 'OR A - fREEHOLD INTEREST, TO THE GRANTEE
<br /> MUST BE DONE BY WAY OF A GIFT AND fOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE AS INDICATED IN I. (A) ABOVE,
<br /> . . BUT THAT A LEASE WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO BE AN "ALIENATION". CON-
<br /> SEQUENTLY A LEASE fOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD Of TIME MAY BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE
<br /> STATUTE EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY RECEIVES VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AND REMUNERATION
<br /> , - ,
<br /> fOR SUCH LEASE.
<br /> UNf013TUNA TE L Y, THE COURT SAW NO fUNDAMENTAL PUBLIC PURPOSE BEING SERVED IN THE NEW YORK
<br /> SITUA~ION, WHICH THIS OfFICE fEELS IS CONTRARY TO THE SITUATION NOW AT HAND I N LANE
<br /> COUNTY.
<br /> 5. If YOU CHOOSE TO REJECT THE PLANS SUGGESTED ABOVE, IT MIGHT BE WELL TO CONSIDER e
<br /> THE POSSIBILITY Of AN OVER-ALL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY Of EUGENE AND LANE COUNTY. BY
<br /> " ,
<br /> STATUTE, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO ENTER AGREEMENTS fOR JOINT PERfORMANCE
<br /> Of fUNC TI ONS.
<br /> -,
<br /> OREGON REVISED STATUTES 190.010 PROVIDES:
<br /> 'MUNICIPALITIES, DISTRICTS OR COMMISSIONS SITUATED IN ANY COUNTY OR COUNTIES, MAY, I
<br /> WHENEVER IT IS DEEMED fOR THEIR BEST INTERESTS, ENTER INTO WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WITH
<br /> .. '
<br /> SUCH COUNTY OR COUNTIES, O~ WITH EACH OTHER, fOR THE JOINT'PERfORMANCE OF ANY AND
<br /> ALL SIMILAR ADMINISTRATIVE fUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES Of THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
<br /> THROUGH CONSOLIDATED AGENCIES, OR BY MEANS Of INSTITUTIOr-'S, BUILDINGS, SWIMMING
<br /> POOLS OR OTHER RECREATIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL f~CILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ~OINTLY CON-
<br /> STRUCTED, OWNED, LEASED OR OPERATED. ,
<br /> OREGON REVISED STATUTES 190.040 PROVIDES:
<br /> 'No AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED_,BY O.R.S. 190.010 SHALL BE ENTERED .. INTO FOR A PERIOD Of
<br /> -,
<br /> MORE.1HAN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE THEREOf; BUT SUCH AGREEMENTS MAY BE RENEWED fOR
<br /> A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING TWO YEARS AT ANY ONE TIME. THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN .
<br /> . -
<br /> _THIS SECTION IS NOT AP~LICABLE T~ CONTRACTS TO JOINTLY OWN, CONSTRUCT,MAI~TAIN
<br /> AND OPERATE P\)BLIC PARKS, ATHLETI C fl EL.DS, SWIMMING POOLS, OTHER TYPES Of RECREA-
<br /> TIONAL O~ EDUCATIONAL fACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT OR COUNTY AND CITY ,GOVERNMENTAL I
<br /> I
<br /> -BufLDI NGS. , .
<br /> . n I
<br /> THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS HAVE NOT RECEIVED JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION BUT MERITED
<br /> THE ATTENTION Of THE STATE LEGISLATURE AS RECENTLY AS THE 1953 SESSION.
<br /> .. ~.
<br /> (A) THE POSSIBILITIES or ~OINT AGREEMEN~S'WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPERTY AND THE
<br /> PROPOSED LIBRARy fOR THE C'TY OF EUGENE ARE MANifOLD UNDER THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
<br /> THI.S OffiCE ~LSO fEELS THAT THIS ~XPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ENTER LONG TERM AGREE-
<br /> MENTS BETWEEN COUNTY AND CITY WITH RESPECT TO EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS AND OTHER PRO- I
<br /> - PROPOSITION THAT O.R.S. I
<br /> PERTIES STRENGTHENS, If IT DOES NOT CERTAINLY ESTABLISH, THE
<br /> ., -
<br /> 275.330 WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO APPLY TO A LEASING AGREEMENT.
<br /> .. "CONVEYANCErl USED "EXCEPTION I
<br /> 3. YOUR ATTENTION IS NEXT INVITED'TO THE TERM IN THE
<br /> CLAUSE""ANDTHE "PROVlio CLAUSE" O~'THE STATUTE UNDER'CONSIDERATION. HERE THE LEGISLATURE
<br />I HAS DEPARTED FROM THE USE OF THE TERM "ALIENATED" AND EMPLOYED THE TERM "CONVEYANCE" AND
<br />i ' -.
<br />, THE QUESTI ON I S PRESENTED ,WHETHER, t N 1?01 NG SO, THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO INCLUDE
<br />I LEASES AS WELL AS DEEDS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE.
<br />I
<br />I e
<br />I
<br />I THE OREGON SUPREME COURT HAS ENUNCIAT~D THE RULE Of LAW THAT A LEASE
<br />I IS A CONVEYANCE
<br />I OF LANDS AND TENEMENTS BY A PERSON fOR LifE OR YEARS AND MAY BE CONVEYED BY DEED. (122
<br /> . -
<br />I OR. 285, 1927) THIS PROPOSITION IS _ RECOGN I ZED IN THE 0 I SCUSS ION ABOVE .WI TH RESPECT TO THE
<br />;
<br />! TERM "ALIENA~ED" WHEREI~ IT IS ACKNOWLE~GED THAT A LEASE MAY BE DONE BY CONVEYANCE AND
<br /> STILL NOT AMOUNT 10 AN ALIENA1IQN.
<br /> BUT A LEASE IS ALSO A CONTRACT, AND IT IS A fUNDAMENTAL PRO~OSITION Of LAW THAT IT
<br /> MUST BE ~UPPORTED BY CONSIDERAT~ON TO HAVE BJNDING LEGAL EffECT.
<br /> YOUNG V NEILL ET AL, 190 OR. 16\
<br /> jjEVAN v. lEMPLEMAN ET AL, I 45 UR; 279, 289
<br /> BINGHAM V. HONEYMAN, 32 UR. 129
<br /> NOYES V. STAUff, 5 OR. 129
<br /> FEASTER V. FAGAN, 113 N.W. 478, 478, 135 IOWA 633
<br /> WARD V. AMERICAN HEALTH FOOD CO. 96 N.W. 388, 391, 119 WIS. 12 I
<br /> . .
<br />i
<br /> e
<br />~ -
<br />
|