Alby (P) sold part of their family farm to their niece, Lorri Brashler, and her husband, Larry Brashler. The property's market value was $100,000, the parties agreed to a purchase price of $15,000. The contract and the deed contained nearly identical clauses providing for automatic reverter to P if the property were subdivided, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered during either of Ps' lifetimes. The Brashlers obtained a loan for $92,000. The Brashlers executed a second deed of trust to obtain a second loan for $17,250 from CIT Group. CIT Group assigned the loan to petitioner, Banc One Financial (Banc One). The Brashlers defaulted on their payments on their first loan, and the lender held a trustee's sale on October 27, 2000. Banc One purchased the property at the sale for $100,822.16 and recorded the trustee's deed on November 2, 2000. P filed a quiet title action against Banc One (D), arguing the title to the property automatically reverted to her when the Brashlers encumbered the property. The trial court quieted title in D and declared the clause void against public policy as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. The Court of Appeals reversed., concluding that the clause is valid because it is not a restraint on alienation and even if it were, the restraint is reasonable. This appeal resulted.