## Facts

- James B. Hansen and William B. Stroecker executed an “Option to Purchase” on December 31, 1971, covering seven land parcels.
- Stroecker paid $1,500 for the option; parcel prices were partly fixed and partly based on per-square-foot rates requiring a survey to compute the total.
- The agreement stated no expiration date for exercise of the option and did not allocate responsibility for procuring or paying for the survey.
- The parties disputed who was to arrange the survey: Hansen’s estate claimed it was Stroecker’s duty; Stroecker testified he believed Hansen would arrange it.
- Hansen died on June 20, 1976; Stroecker obtained a survey in July 1980.
- After the survey, Stroecker tendered $1,028 as the remaining purchase price to Mary Hansen’s attorney on August 25, 1980.
- Mary Hansen, individually and as personal representative of Hansen’s estate, refused to convey the property, asserting the option was void under the rule against perpetuities and was exercised after unreasonable delay.

## Issues

1. Whether an option to purchase land with no stated expiration violates the rule against perpetuities and is void.
2. Whether the agreement should be treated as an option subject to the rule against perpetuities or as a present, vested real estate contract interest.
3. Whether delay in surveying and tendering payment barred specific performance on equitable grounds.
4. Whether the superior court erred by denying the prevailing party attorney’s fees without explanation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed specific performance for Stroecker.
- The court adopted a common-law “wait-and-see” approach to the rule against perpetuities and held the option valid because it actually vested within the allowable period.
- The court rejected the claim that delay defeated enforcement of the agreement.
- The court remanded the attorney’s-fees issue because the superior court denied fees to the prevailing party without explaining its reasons.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alaska common law, rule-against-perpetuities validity is evaluated by “wait-and-see”: the permissible period is measured by actual events, not hypothetical possibilities.
- An indefinite option to purchase is not void if, as exercised, it vests within the perpetuities period.
- Specific performance is not barred solely by passage of time where the contract lacks a stated time for performance and the record does not show inequitable prejudice sufficient to justify denial of equitable relief.
- When prevailing-party attorney’s fees are denied contrary to ordinary fee practice, the trial court must provide reasons sufficient for appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the land purchase option by adopting a wait-and-see perpetuities rule that validated the option as actually exercised, upheld specific performance despite asserted delay, and required further proceedings on attorney’s fees because the trial court gave no explanation for denying fees to the prevailing party.


Hansen v. Stroecker, 699 P.2d 871 (Alaska 1985)