Where he went wrong is in putting these in covenants and not putting them into the grant as reversionary clauses in the contract of sale or transfer to his money-grubbing kid, and a general reversion clause setting the transfer aside upon return of the payment within thirty days if those clauses were ruled invalid. He had to know full well the courts would never enforce a covenant like this. He really screwed the pooch on this one if he believed it would hold up.
some years ago, a "lady from Ft Worth" gave a large plot of land to Texas Women's University, with the understanding that none of the land or proceeds therefrom were to be used for educating "persons of the male gender". she specifically stated in the transfer document that she had no problem with TWU spending other funds on "males", but NOT her land/money.
the donor stated that "her land or the proceeds therefrom" were to be used to assure that "poor girls from Texas, who were otherwise qualified to attend TWU" were able to attend the university.
a clause in the document giving the land to TWU stated that in the event that the land or $$$$$$ from it's sale or rental were used for "the benefit of men", that the whole parcel and or money from it's sale/lease would revert to her or ,in the event of her death, to her estate.
the courts held that this clause was UNJUST & told TWU that the clause was "null & void". TWU then sold the land & placed the proceed in the "University General Fund". (btw, the lady, at least the last time i heard, was still alive & hasn't given another DIME to TWU. does anyone blame her???
free dixie,sw