Caccamo v. Banning

A will left Caccamo (plaintiff) an interest in real estate that arguably created a fee tail estate rather than fee simple, with a remainder interest potentially passing to other relatives if Caccamo died without children. When Caccamo sold the property at auction, buyer Banning (defendant) refused to complete the purchase, arguing Caccamo's deed couldn't convey marketable fee simple title given the will's fee-tail language; Caccamo sued for the remaining purchase price, having first conveyed the property to a third party in fee simple and then had it deeded back to her before the sale to Banning.