Appeals conflict both with this state’s strong public policy upholding the freedom of contract as well as rules of property law. Respondent con tends that the holdings we must review properly reflect the force of the general principle that one cannot convey more than one owns and the more specific application of that principle in the context of a lease of real property by one whose interest is measured by his or her life or the life of another. On the unique facts of this case, we conclude that Petitioners have the stronger argument, because Decedent owned interests at the time of the lease other than the life estate she acquired as a result of the 1969 family settlement agreement. Those interests were transferable. See generally Statler v. Watson, 160 Neb. 1, 68 N.W.2d 604, 607 (1955) (<HOLDING>). {10} In this state, we have a broadly worded
holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that the term personal property in its broadest legal signification includes everything the subject of ownership not being land or any interest in land holding states property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a special sovereignty interest recognizing a life tenants power to lease not only her present interest in the land she occupies but also a future interest she owns in the same land