COMMON RECOVERY

common recovery.Hist. An elaborate proceeding, full of legal fictions, by which a tenant in tail disentailed a fee-tail estate. • The action facilitated land transfer by allowing a potential transferee who was barred by law from receiving land to “recover” the land by suing the actual owner. Common recoveries, which were abolished early in the 19th century, were originally concocted by the clergy as a way to avoid the land-conveyance restrictions imposed by mortmain acts. — Also termed feigned recovery. See MORTMAIN STATUTE. Cf. CESSIO IN JURE; praecipe quod reddat under PRAECIPE.

“Here’s how [the common recovery] worked. B, with the connivance of A, would bring a real action against A claiming falsely that he, B, owned the land and demanding recovery of it. A responded by claiming, just as falsely, that he had acquired the land from C and that C had warranted title to the land. When A demanded of C, also an accomplice of A, that he defend the title, C admitted falsely that he had, indeed, warranted the title. C allowed B to take a default judgment against A for the recovery of the land, and allowed A to obtain a default judgment against himself, C, for the recovery of land of equal value. The result of this fancy feudal footwork was to leave B with title to the land in fee simple and to leave A with his judgment against C. The judgment against C was viewed by the court as an adequate substitute for the entailed land. But when it came time for O or A’s lineal heirs to enforce the judgment, it would transpire that C had been selected by A because he had no land at all! (Why else would C have played along?) Did the court have any suspicion that A, B, and C were colluding? Of course they did — but how else, in the face of De Donis, could they unshackle land from the chains of the fee tail?” Thomas F. Bergin & Paul G. Haskell, Preface to Estates in Land and Future Interests 31–32 (2d ed. 1984). [Blacks Law 8th]