In the Matter of Fred L. Maxwell, deceased, 2026 COA 10

Fred L. Maxwell’s 1945 will devised Maxwell Ranch to a CSU-affiliated nonprofit on conditions that the land be used exclusively for experimental purposes connected to CSU and never be sold. 1
Maxwell also expressed specific research uses for the ranch, while stating those purposes were suggestions rather than limitations. 2
CSU STRATA took title to the ranch in 1975 and later used it for various research and educational activities, including some wind-energy-related leases. 3
In 2024, CSU STRATA petitioned to void the sale and use restrictions or, alternatively, reform the will to permit sale, encumbrances, a conservation easement, and a wind-energy lease. 4
The district court denied all relief after finding Maxwell’s intent controlled and that CSU had not shown impracticability or invalidity. 5
On appeal, no one opposed the petition, and the court of appeals reviewed the undisputed facts and reversed in part. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the sale and use restrictions void as unreasonable restraints? 7	CSU STRATA argued both restrictions unreasonably restrained alienation.	The charitable gift exception makes the restrictions enforceable.	No; the restrictions are not void. 8
Should the will be reformed to allow sale or encumbrance consistent with cy pres? 9	CSU STRATA said continued ranch research was impracticable and wasteful.	The ranch can still be used as Maxwell intended.	Yes; the will must be reformed to permit sale or compatible encumbrances. 10
May CSU STRATA declare a conservation easement consistent with the use restriction? 11	CSU STRATA sought a declaration that a conservation easement was permissible.	The record was too sparse to decide whether it fit the experimental-purpose restriction.	No; the record was insufficient. 12
May CSU STRATA lease the ranch for wind-energy production? 13	CSU STRATA claimed a wind-energy lease would fit the ranch’s experimental purpose.	Such a lease was not shown to be consistent with Maxwell’s intent.	Yes, if the lease requires experimental research use. 14

Teal Trading & Dev., LP v. Champee Springs Ranches Prop. Owners Ass'n, 534 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App. 2017) (defines restraints on alienation 15)
Lamar Advert. v. Larry & Vickie Nicholls, L.L.C., 2009 WY 96 (Wyo. 2009) (distinguishes direct and indirect restraints on alienation 16)
Cronk v. Shoup, 197 P. 756 (Colo. 1921) (general rule against restraints on alienation of fee simple estates 17)
Carpenter v. Winn, 566 P.2d 370 (Colo. App. 1977) (restraints are invalid only if unreasonable 18)
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Whiting Oil & Gas Corp., 2014 CO 16 (Colo. 2014) (rule against unreasonable restraints is judged by reasonableness 19)
Sisters of Mercy of Cedar Rapids v. Lightner, 274 N.W. 86 (Iowa 1937) (donor may impose restraints on alienation for charitable uses 20)
Dunbar v. Bd. of Trs. of George W. Clayton Coll., 461 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1969) (Colorado cy pres authority for charitable gifts 21)
In re Estate of Vallery, 883 P.2d 24 (Colo. App. 1993) (cy pres applies to charitable gifts and impracticability standard 22)