In $1965,$ Maricopa County executed two quitclaim deeds to the City of Tempe. The deeds contained the following provision: No words creating a right of reentry or indicating a reversionary interest in the county were used. The city leased the land to Baseball Facilities, Inc. $($BFI$).$ In $1973,$ BFI applied for a sales tax permit to conduct activities such as a music festival and evangelical meetings on the land. None of these uses were prohibited by the lease. The city, however, denied the permit on grounds that the use for these purposes would create a right in Maricopa County to recover the property. The city argued that the provision in the deeds created a defeasible fee. Was the city correct? Discuss. City of Tempe v$.$ Baseball Facilities, Inc., $23$ Ariz. App. $557,534$ P$\mathrm{.}2$d $1056($Ct$.$ App. $1975).$