LIFE ESTATE

Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent

"but if X occurs, then to Grantor."

What are the four types of fee simple estates?

1.) FS Absolute 2.) FS s.t. Executory Limitation 3.) FS determinable 4.) FS s.t. Condition Subsequent

conditional or determinable.

A fee simple subject to an executory limitation can be

VESTED REMAINDER SUBJECT TO OPEN

A remainder conveyed to a class of persons where it is possible for additional persons to join that class

when there is no future event that could cause the remainderman to lose his remainder.

A remainder is indefeasibly vested when

CONTIGENT REMAINDER 2

Abraham conveys Blackacre "to my wife, Sarah, for life; then to my children - none of whom are yet born." Madison conveys Blackacre "to Lincoln for life; remainder to Washington if Washington turns 18 before Lincoln dies." What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Lincoln holds a present interest in a life estate. A: Washington holds a _____________ A: Madison holds a reversion in FSA. EXPLANATION: Washington's remainder is contingent on him turning 18 before Lincoln's death. But what happens if that contingency is not fulfilled? A: B/C the conveyance is silent, the Grantor (Madison) impliedly holds a reversion (in FSA.)

the landlord to evict anyone who should not be on the property, so that the tenant may actually, physically possess the property.

Actual possession requires

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Eve has present interest in fee simple s.t. condition subsequent. A: Adam has right of entry in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Once Eve picks the fruit, Adam may - if he so choose- exercise his right of entry to realize a present interest in fee simple absolute.

Adam conveys Blackacre "to Eve, on condition that Eve does not pick fruit from the trees."

What is the state of the tile at the conveyance? A: Eve has a present interest in fee simple determinable. A: Adam has a possibility of reverter (future interest) in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: A fee simple determinable is an estate that ends when some event occurs that is not death, introduced by words of duration ("so long as" here). This describes Eve's estate. The future interest that cuts short the fee simple determinable is a possibility of reverter, which is held by Adam, the Grantor.

Adam conveys Blackacre "to Eve, so long as Eve does not pick fruit from the trees."

A: No. Opie's shifting executory interest does not pass the test. EXPLANATION: Is it possible to still exist 21 years after everyone living at the time of the conveyance has died?A: Yes, so his executory interest fails the test. The condition that would turn Opie's executory interest into a present interest is any deputy quitting his or her job. So after everyone alive at the conveyance has died (i.e., Andy, Caroline, and Opie), Opie's heirs could still hold the executory interest waiting for a deputy to quit his or her job. Even 21 years after everyone has died, Opie's heirs could still be waiting ! Opie's executory interewst fails the test.

Andy conveys Blackacre "to Caroline, but if any deputy ever quits his or her job in Small Town, Mississippi, then to Opie instead." DOES THIS CONVEYANCE PASS THE TEST?

he necessarily retains some future interest, even if the instrument of conveyance does not say so.

Anytime a grantor conveys less than a fee simple absolute interest in property

the landlord here must deliver both legal and actual possession to the graduate student.

Because the governing jurisdiction follows the majority approach

Hillary holds a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent. Hillary's estate ends if she divorces Bll, and that condition is introduced by the keys words, on condition. Because the conveyance is silent as to what happens to Blackacre if Hillary divorces Bill, Blackacre impliedly would go back to the Grantor, Bill.

Bill conveys Blackacre "to Hillary on condition that she never divorce me."

Robin's estate is a fee simple s.t. executory limitation. Robin's right to possess Blackacre will terminate if he ceases his employment. And if that occurs, the right to possess Blackacre goes to a third party, Clark, who is not the Grantor. Those circumstances indicate Robin's fee simple s.t. executory limitation.

Bruce conveys Blackacre "to Robin, while he is employed in law enforcement; otherwise to Clark." At the time of the conveyance, Robin is employed in law enforcement.

Lucy's right to possess Blackacre may terminate if she stops residing on Blackacre. And if that occurs, the estate goes to a 3rd party, Linus, who is not the Grantor. Hence, her estate that she presently holds is a fee simple s.t. executory limitation.

Charlie conveys Blackacre "to Lucy as long as Lucy continues to reside on Blackacre; if she stops residing there, then to Linus."

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Lucy holds a present interest in a life estate. Charlie holds a reversion in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Lucy's estate ends when she dies, so she must hold a present interest in a life estate. What interest follows after a life estate when the estate goes back to the Grantor? A: A reversion. Charlie, then, holds a reversion. In what estate does Charlie hold his reversion? A: Fee simple absolute b/s that is the estate that Charlie will realize once his reversion turns into a present interest.

Charlie conveys Blackacre "to Lucy as long as Lucy is alive."

What do Lois hold at the conveyance? A: Lois holds a present interest in a life estate. What does Jimmy hold at the conveyance? A: Jimmy holds a indefeasibly vested remainder in a fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Lois holds a life estate b/c her right to possession of Blackacre ends on her death. Jimmy holds the future interests that follows Lois's life estate. That future interest must be a indefeasibly vested remainder b/c Jimmy is NOT the grantor. The estate that Jimmy holds is a fee simple absolute b/c he will realize a fee simple absolute once her remainder turns into a present interest.

Clark conveys Blackacre "to Lois for life; then to Jimmy"

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: William holds a present interest in a fee simple s.t. executory limitation A: Kate holds a shifting executory interest in FSA.

Harry conveys Blackacre "to William, but if William ever divorces, then to Kate."

is essentially a question of negligence—failure to take reasonable care of the property.

Permissive waste

POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER 2

The future interest that cuts short the estate called a fee simple determinable

rather than conditional words.

a determinable interest uses durational rather than

Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent

a right to possess land that may terminate if a condition occurs, which cannot be a person's death. If that condition occurs, then the right to possession must revert back to the Grantor. Look for keys words in the conveyance that make possession of the estate conditional: if, on condition, unless, provided that, however. These words signal a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent.

remainder 3

follows life estate; NOT held by Grantor

POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER 3

until x occurs, then to grantor..

FEE SIMPLE SUBJECT TO EXECUTORY LIMITATION 3

"To A, but if X event occurs, then to B"

Bill holds a life estate. Thus, the estate that Bill presently holds at the time of the conveyance is a life estate.

"to Bill for life"

spring executory interest

"to Grantee only if X occurs."

FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE. Lucy holds a fee simple absolute. There is no language in the conveyance that restricts Lucy's estate, so Ricky conveys to Lucy all possible rights to Blackacre.

"to Lucy."

The language of the conveyance indicates that Nancy's rights to Blackacre cease when she dies. Her estate is thus a life estate.

"to Nancy for as long as Nancy is living."

Ricky holds a life estate. The language indicates that Ricky's rights to Blackacre terminate when he dies. Thus, the estate that he holds at the time of the conveyance is a life estate.

"to Ricky until he dies"

Fee Simple Subject to Executory Limitation 2

"until X occurs; otherwise to 3rd party"

VESTED REMAINDER SUBJECT TO DIVESTMENT

1.) EX. Andy conveys Blackacre "to Caroline for life; remainder to Barney, but if Barney quits his deputy job, then remainder to Opie instead." What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Caroline has a present interest in a life estate. A: Barney has a _____________ in FSA. A: Opie holds a shifting executory interest in FSA. EXPLANATION: Barney's remainder may be cut short if Barney quits his deputy job. Hence, his remainder is subject to divestment by Opie's shifting executory interest. If the future interest of either Barney or Opie becomes a present interest, then either would hold an estate in FSA.

there are two kinds of interests

1.) present interest: should always be stated as "present interest." Easy. 2.) future interest: not merely stated as 'future interest." All future interests have specific names. So, when a person has a future interest in an estate, the future interests has a specific name. Not so easy. When you refer to a person's future interest in an estate, you refer to the estate that the person would realize in the future - that is, the estate that the person would get once her right to possess the land becomes presently effective. So you would say: "Person X holds {the specific future interests} in the {estate that person X will realize once his future interest becomes a present interest}

Spring executory interest 2

an executory interest that may cut short a present interest that is held by the Grantor

is contingent

any remainder that is not vested

Answer option B (No, because he did not wrongfully exclude the sister from the property.)is correct. A cotenant commits ouster when he wrongfully excludes another cotenant from the property, which violates the excluded cotenant's right of possession. Estate of Hughes v. Patton, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 742 (App. 1992). Ouster can occur through physical exclusion, such as changing the locks or denying a cotenant's request to enter. Id. It can also occur when one cotenant gives unmistakable notice of intent to exclude the other cotenant. Barrow v. Barrow, 527 So.2d 1373 (Fla. 1988). Here, the brother has not committed ouster because he has not taken any act to exclude the sister from possession of the property. Answer option C (Yes, because he refused the sister's demand to vacate half of the building.)is incorrect because the brother, as a cotenant, has the right to occupy the entire property. Therefore, he is under no obligation to vacate half of the building upon demand of the other cotenant. If the sister had demanded the right to occupy the building herself, the brother's refusal would constitute ouster. Answer option D (Yes, because he refused the sister's demand to pay rent.) is incorrect because the brother's refusal of the sister's demand that he pay rent does not constitute ouster. In most states, the no-liability rule means that a tenant in possession does not owe rent to the other cotenants. Spiller v. Mackereth, 334 So.2d 859 (Ala. 1976). However, even in a state that follows the minority liability rule, the tenant in possession's refusal to pay rent to the other cotenant would support a claim for damages only, but would not, without more, constitute an ouster.

A brother and sister owned coequal shares of a commercial building as tenants in common that they leased to a business. When the business's lease expired, the brother took the property and used it for his own business. The sister sent her brother a letter demanding that he either vacate half of the building or pay her half of the fair market rental value. The brother refused to do either. The sister sued the brother, claiming that he had committed ouster. Is a court likely to find that the brother has committed ouster?

Answer option C (The sister has a conditional fee simple subject to an executory limitation; the brother has a shifting executory interest.)is correct. The sister has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation because her fee simple estate is followed by an executory interest. Where the future interest that corresponds to a present estate is created in a grantee, it can either be a remainder or an executory interest—and only an executory interest can follow a fee simple estate. A fee simple subject to an executory limitation can be conditional or determinable. The conveyance to the sister includes the conditional phrase "but if," signaling that her interest is conditional (here, conditioned on an event not happening).

A farmer owned her land in fee simple absolute. The farmer conveyed the land in a deed that stated that she was conveying the land to her sister "in fee simple, but if she ever runs for a political office, then to [the farmer's brother]." Immediately following this conveyance, what interests do the farmer's sister and brother have in the land?

ascertainable. Additionally, there must be no conditions precedent to the complete vesting of rights in the remainderman.

A future interest in property is vested when it is granted to a person who is born and whose identity is presently

Explanation: Answer option D (A contingent remainder.)is correct. While the grantor's sister was still alive, her daughter had a contingent remainder. A remainder is vested if it meets both of the following two requirements: (1) the remainderman must be a person who, at the time of the creation of the remainder interest, has been born and whose identity is ascertainable and (2) there must be no condition precedent to the complete vesting of the remainder. If either requirement is not met, then the remainder is a contingent remainder. Here, the remainder interest was given to any of the sister's children who survive the sister's death. At the time of the conveyance, the sister was still alive. Therefore, it was not possible to ascertain who would survive the sister's death. The daughter existed and the sister's child. However, at the time the interest was created and the sister was still alive, there was no way of knowing with any certainty whether or not the daughter would live longer than the sister (her mother). Therefore, while the sister was alive, the daughter's interest failed the first requirement for being a vested remainder and would have been a contingent remainder. Alternatively, the interest could be seen as creating a condition precedent. As the sister's child, the daughter had a potential remainder interest at the time of the conveyance, but the daughter's interest was subject to the daughter surviving the grantor's sister (her mother). Thus, surviving the sister's death was a condition precedent to the vesting of the daughter's remainder interest. Viewed in this manner, while the grantor's sister was alive, the daughter's interest failed the second requirement for being a vested remainder. Either way, the daughter's interest was not certain at the time the remainder was created and the grantor's sister was alive. This means that the daughter's interest could not be any form of vested remainder. Because any remainder that is not vested is contingent, the daughter's interest was a contingent remainder during the life of the grantor's sister (the daughter's mother).

A grantor conveyed a life estate to his sister, "with a remainder to any of [the sister's] children who survive her death." The conveyance further stated, "If [the sister] has no surviving children at the time of her death, then to the American Red Cross." At the time of the conveyance, the sister had one daughter. This daughter ultimately survived the grantor's sister (her mother), who never had any other children. While the grantor's sister (the daughter's mother) was alive, what interest did the daughter have?

Answer option A (No, because the grantor did not immediately take possession of the property once the city converted half of it to a park.)is incorrect because a grantor who has retained a right of entry does not have to exercise the right of entry immediately upon the happening of the condition in the grant. Answer option D (Yes, because the city took title in fee simple determinable, and the grantor is properly exercising his right of entry.) is incorrect because, as explained above, the grant to the city was in fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. If the grant were in fee simple determinable, it would have used temporal language such as "while," "until," "during," or "so long as" (i.e., ". . . to the city so long as it is used as a wildlife refuge").

A grantor conveyed a wooded tract of land to a city in fee simple, with the deed including the following language: "to be used solely as a wildlife refuge; however, if used for any other purpose, the grantor will have the right to terminate this grant." After several years, the city converted half the property into a park for use by city residents, leaving half the property as a wildlife refuge. Two years later, the grantor brought an action against the city seeking the return of the entire property. Is the grantor likely to prevail in this action?

Note: Although the gas monitoring organization appears to have an indefeasibly vested remainder (i.e., it is created in an ascertained company, is certain to become possessory, and is not subject to being defeated, divested, or diminished in size), its interest is not capable of taking on the natural termination of the preceding estate and so is characterized as a springing executory interest. ANSWER D: The son, because he did not sign the contract of sale. The son may enjoin the sale because he has an interest in the property. A fee simple determinable is an estate that automatically terminates on the happening of a stated event. The Green Party's interest in the office building is a fee simple determinable because it lasts as long as the Party is using the building for operating quarters. However, the grant does not provide for the contingency of the Green Party ceasing to use the building as operating quarters before the next presidential election. This gap would be filled by a possibility of reverter retained by the landowner. Because the landowner passed that interest to her son in her will, there can be no contract to sell the property without his signature.

A landowner validly conveyed a small office building to the Green Party "as long as they use it for operating quarters until the next presidential election." After the next presidential election, which was in three years, the building would go to a private organization that monitors and prepares comprehensive listings of gas prices throughout the country. A year after the conveyance, the landowner died, validly devising all of her property to her son. Although this jurisdiction is a common law jurisdiction with respect to all real property considerations, the state's probate laws provide that future interests or estates in real property may be passed by will or descent in the same manner as present or possessory interests. Last week, the Green Party and the gas monitoring organization joined together to sell the office building in fee simple absolute to a developer. The son filed suit to prevent the sale of the property to the developer. In this action, who should prevail?

Explanation: Answer option B (The landlord, because the landlord must deliver both legal and actual possession.) is correct. One of a landlord's main duties is to deliver possession of the leased premises. All states require landlords to deliver legal possession. Legal possession means that no third party has superior title to the property than the landlord and, therefore, that no third party has the right to evict the tenant. See Adrian v. Rabinowitz, 186 A.29 (N.J. 1936). In most states, landlords must also deliver actual possession. Actual possession requires the landlord to evict anyone who should not be on the property, so that the tenant may actually, physically possess the property. 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant § 418, Westlaw (database updated Aug. 2019). Because the governing jurisdiction follows the majority approach, the landlord here must deliver both legal and actual possession to the graduate student. No facts suggest that someone has superior title to the property than the landlord and would be able to evict the graduate student or, for that matter, the landlord. Therefore, the landlord has delivered legal possession. However, the landlord has not delivered actual possession to the graduate student, because the previous tenant is still living in the apartment. The landlord therefore has the burden of evicting the previous tenant, because the landlord must deliver actual possession. Answer options A (The landlord, because the landlord must deliver legal possession) and D (The graduate student, because the landlord need only deliver legal possession.)are incorrect because the previous tenant's holdover does not create a problem with legal possession. Rather, it creates a problem with actual possession. The landlord has delivered legal possession because no one is able to claim title to the property that is superior to the landlord's and, in turn, use that claim to evict the tenant. The previous tenant's holdover does not impact the landlord's title. Rather, it prevents the graduate student from taking actual, physical possession of the apartment from the landlord.

A landlord rented an apartment to a graduate student. When the graduate student arrived at the apartment on move-in day, she discovered that the previous tenant was still living there. The governing jurisdiction followed the majority approach to the duty to deliver possession. Who has the burden of evicting the previous tenant from the apartment?

CORRECT ANSWER (D) For the grandson, because he received a possibility of reverter from his grandmother. The court should rule for the grandson because he received a possibility of reverter from his grandmother. The landowner attempted to give the daughter and her successors a fee simple subject to an executory interest, with the niece and her successors holding the executory interest. However, the attempted gift to the niece and her successors fails under the Rule Against Perpetuities because the niece's interest could vest in possession more than 21 years after a life in being. Thus, (B) is incorrect. After the void interest is stricken, the daughter and her successors have a fee simple determinable and the landowner retained a possibility of reverter, which passed to the grandson through the residuary clause in the landowner's will. When the husband, the daughter's successor, ceased using the property for residential purposes, the possibility of reverter matured, leaving ownership in the grandson. (A) is therefore incorrect. (C) is incorrect because a possibility of reverter, not a right of reversion, is the interest left in the grantor when a fee simple determinable is created.

A landowner devised her parcel of land to her daughter, her heirs, and assigns, "so long as the property is used for residential purposes, then to my niece, her heirs, and assigns." The remainder of the landowner's property passed through the residuary clause of her will to her grandson. The daughter lived on the land for 25 years; then, on her death, ownership passed to her husband. In the meantime, the niece had also died, leaving her entire estate to her son. The husband has leased the land to a developer, who has obtained the necessary permits to build a shopping center on it. The grandson and the niece's son both file quiet title and ejectment actions against the husband, and the cases are consolidated. How should the court, applying common law, rule as to ownership of the land?

The children have a contingent remainder. A remainder is a future interest created in a transferee that is capable of taking in present possession on the natural termination of the preceding estate created in the same disposition. Note that, as a rule of thumb, remainders always follow life estates. A remainder will be classified as contingent if its taking is subject to a condition precedent, or it is created in favor of unborn or unascertained persons. Here, the interest in the children follows a life estate and is a remainder because it is capable of taking in possession on the natural termination of the preceding estate. It is subject to the condition precedent of surviving the landowner's widow and, additionally, is in favor of unascertained persons (the children who survive the landowner's widow will not be ascertained until her death). Thus, the interest is a contingent remainder. (B) is incorrect because a vested remainder can be created in and held only by ascertained persons in being, and cannot be subject to a condition precedent. As discussed above, the will provision clearly does not satisfy these requirements because the takers are not ascertained and their interest is subject to a condition of survival.

A landowner included in his will a provision giving "all of my property, both real and personal, wherever situated, to my widow for life, and after her death to any of our children who may survive her." What is the gift to the children?

correct answer A: The son, because he did not sign the contract of sale. The son may enjoin the sale because he has an interest in the property. A fee simple determinable is an estate that automatically terminates on the happening of a stated event. The Green Party's interest in the office building is a fee simple determinable because it lasts as long as the Party is using the building for operating quarters. However, the grant does not provide for the contingency of the Green Party ceasing to use the building as operating quarters before the next presidential election. This gap would be filled by a possibility of reverter retained by the landowner. Because the landowner passed that interest to her son in her will, there can be no contract to sell the property without his signature. Note: Although the gas monitoring organization appears to have an indefeasibly vested remainder (i.e., it is created in an ascertained company, is certain to become possessory, and is not subject to being defeated, divested, or diminished in size), its interest is not capable of taking on the natural termination of the preceding estate and so is characterized as a springing executory interest.

A landowner validly conveyed a small office building to the Green Party "as long as they use it for operating quarters until the next presidential election." After the next presidential election, which was in three years, the building would go to a private organization that monitors and prepares comprehensive listings of gas prices throughout the country. A year after the conveyance, the landowner died, validly devising all of her property to her son. Although this jurisdiction is a common law jurisdiction with respect to all real property considerations, the state's probate laws provide that future interests or estates in real property may be passed by will or descent in the same manner as present or possessory interests. Last week, the Green Party and the gas monitoring organization joined together to sell the office building in fee simple absolute to a developer. The son filed suit to prevent the sale of the property to the developer. In this action, who should prevail?

(1) the remainderman must be a person who, at the time of the creation of the remainder interest, has been born and whose identity is ascertainable and (2) there must be no condition precedent to the complete vesting of the remainder. If either requirement is not met, then the remainder is a contingent remainder.

A remainder is vested if it meets both of the following two requirements:

Explanation: Answer option D ( Whether reletting the home terminates the abandoning tenant's lease.)is correct. A tenant has a duty to pay rent until the lease agreement terminates. A tenant's abandonment of the leased premises does not terminate the lease and rent obligation. Restatement (Second) of Property (Landlord and Tenant) § 12.1 cmt. i. Rather, the landlord's acceptance of surrender terminates the lease and rent obligation. Id. § 12.1(3)(a). Acceptance of surrender means that the landlord treats the tenant's abandonment as the tenant's offer to give up all rights to the property. A landlord accepts surrender by retaking the property for the landlord's own use or by taking other actions, such as remodeling, that are inconsistent with a continuing lease. 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant §§ 213-15, Westlaw (database updated Aug. 2019). Jurisdictions adopting a modern approach to landlord remedies usually require the landlord to mitigate damages when a tenant abandons by reletting the premises to a new tenant. In some states, reletting constitutes acceptance of surrender unless the landlord notifies the abandoning tenant that the lease will remain in effect. Additionally, some statutes provide that reletting residential premises automatically terminates the abandoned lease. Restatement (Second) of Property (Landlord and Tenant) § 12.1 cmt. i. The additional piece of information the landlord's lawyer requires here to compute how much rent the abandoning tenant owes is whether reletting the apartment to the new tenant terminates the abandoning tenant's lease. If the lease was terminated, this ends the abandoning tenant's duty to pay rent. If the lease was not terminated by reletting the premises, then in general the landlord must apply any rent collected from the new tenant toward the abandoning tenant's rental obligation.

A residential tenant abandoned a home she had been renting for $1,200 per month. Six months remained in the abandoning tenant's lease term. The landlord located a new tenant willing to pay $1,000 per month to rent the home. What additional information, if any, must the landlord's lawyer know in order to calculate the amount of rent owed by the abandoning tenant?

when the happening of a future event will cause the remainderman to lose his remainder.

A vested remainder is subject to complete divestment when

when the happening of a future event has the possibility of diluting the remainderman's share in favor of other potential parties.

A vested remainder is subject to open when

A: Noah holds a present interest in a life estate. A: Enoch holds a vested remainder subject to divestment in FSA. A: Shem holds a shifting executory interest in FSA. EXPLANATION: Because Shem's executory interest is not cutting short an interest held by the Grantor, it must be a shifting executory interest.

Adam conveys Blackacre "to Noah for life, then to Enoch— unless all of Blackacre becomes covered by a flood during Noah's life, in which case Blackacre goes to Shem." What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

VESTED REMAINDER SUBJECT TO DIVESTMENT 3

Adam conveys Blackacre "to Noah for life, then to Enoch— unless all of Blackacre becomes covered by a flood during Noah's life, in which case Blackacre goes to Shem." What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Noah has a present interest in a life estate. A: Enoch has a _________ FSA. A: Shem has a shifting executory interest in FSA. EXPLANATION: Enoch's remainder is subject to divestment in the even that the flood occurs on Blackacre. If that flood happens, Shem's excutory interest cuts short Enoch's remainder.

SHIFTING EXECUTORY INTEREST

An executory interest that may cut short an interest or estate that is NOT held by the granto. _________executory interst may cut short: 1.) fee simple s.t. executory limitation 2.) a vested remainder s.t. divestment

A: yes; the conveyance passes the test. EXPLANATION: The rule requires an executory interest to either terminate or vest within 21 years after someone alive at the conveyance (i.e., barney) has died. Barney is a living person at the time of the conveyance. And Opie's shifting executory interest is tied to Barney's life: either Barney will quit his job or he won't during Barney's lifetime. Thus, Opie's shifting executory interest must either terminate or become a present interest during Barney's lifetime. Oppie's shifting executory interest passes the Rule test.

Andy conveys Blackacre "to Caroline for life; remainder to Barney quits his deputy job, then remainder to Opie instead." DOES THIS CONVEYANCE PASS THE TEST?

A: Yes. Opie's shifting executory interest in FSA is subject to the Rule.

Andy conveys Blackacre "to Caroline for life; remainder to Barney, but if Barney quits his deputy job, then remainder to Opie instead." Is this conveyance subject to the RAP?

Apply the test RAP

Ask whether one of the three interests idenfitied for this rule could possibly last longer than 21 years after everyone alive at the time of the conveyance has died. Stated another way: in the conveyance, is it possible for either the executory interest, the contingent remainder, or the vested remained s.t. open to still exist even 21 years after everyone alive in the conveyance has died? If yes (the interest could still exist after that time), then the interests fails the test. if no (interest could not possibly exist after that time), then interest passes the test.

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Hillary holds a springing executory interest in a life estate. A: Barack holds a present interest in FS s.t executory limitation AND a reversion in FSA. EXPLANATION: B/c Barack has placed a condition on Hillary taking Blackacre (i.e., winning the next election), Barack has retained the present interest for the time being. Hillary thus has a printing executory interest that may cut short Barack's FS s.t. executory limitation. If Hillary does in fact win the next election, she will realize merely a life estate (the conveyance states, "for life"). Because the conveyance does not specify what happens when Hillary dies, Blackacre impliedly would go back to the Grantor, Barack. Hence, Barack would also have a reversion in FSA, following up after Hillary's life estate. WHY ISN'T HILLARY'S INTEREST A CONTIGENT REMAINDER? A: Even though Hillary might take a life estate, her interest does not follow a life estate . B/C her interest does not follow a life estate, it cannot be a remainder.

Barack conveys Blackacre "to Hillary for life, but only if she wins the next election."

What does Ernie hold when the conveyance occurs? A: Ernie holds a present interest in fee simple absolute. What does Bert hold? A: Bert holds nothing. EXPLANATION: Bert gives Ernie the right to presently possess Blackacre (w/out any restriction). So Ernie holds a present interest (in FS Absolute) and Bert is left w/ nothing. There is NO future interest in this problem b/c Ernie's estate has no end. The fee simple absolute is w/out any restriction.

Bert conveys Blackacre "to Ernie."

Marty holds a present interest in fee simple s.t. executory limitation. Jack holds a shifting executory interest in FSA. Explanation Marty's estate is not measured by anyone's life, so it must be some sort of fee simple. Because the land eventually could go to someone who is not the Grantor (i.e., Jack), Marty's estate must be a fee simple s.t. executory limitation. The future interest that follows the fee simple s.t. executory interest is always an executory interest. It is shifting because Jack, who holds the executory interest, is not the Grantor.

Biff conveys Blackacre "to Marty, but if Marty fails out of law school, then to Jack." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

Hillary holds a fee simple determinable. Hillary's rights to possess Blackacre is for a limited duration, ending when she divorces Bill. The limitation on her time to possess Blackacre is introduced by the key word, until. Importantly, the conveyance is silent as to what happens with Blackacre when she does divorce Bill. The silence implies that Blackacre will go back to the Grantor, Bill. So her estate must be a fee simple determinable.

Bill conveys Blackacre "to Hillary until she divorces me."

Martin holds a fee simple absolute. The "and his heirs" language is a term of art in land conveyance which does not actually give any rights to Martin's heirs. So there is no restriction on Martin's estate.

Bill conveys Blackacre "to Martin and his heirs."

Clyde holds a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent. Clyde's estate ends if a condition occurs - i.e., he ceases his marriage with Hilda. This is a condition that ends his estate b/c of the word that introduces the restriction- IF.Importantly, the conveyance is silent as to who gets possession if Clyde ceases his marriage: that silence implies that the Grantor, Bonnie, may then re-take the porperty. Hence, Clyde's estate must be a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent.

Bonnie conveys Blackacre "to Clyde IF he remains married to my sister, Hilda.

Clyde's estate ends when he ceases his marriage with Hilda. The words that introduce that restriction - as long as - set up a duration. The fact that the conveyance is silent as to who gets possession once Clyde ceases his marriage implies that possession would revert back to the Grantor, Bonnie.

Bonnie conveys Blackacre "to Clyde for as long as he remains married to my sister, Hilda."

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Bruce holds a present interest In FS s.t. executory limitation. A: Alfred holds a springing executory interest in FSA. EXPLANATION: Bruce (Grantor) retains the present interest b/c Alfred cannot take Blackacre until he turns 90. Because the grantor retains the present interest, the Grantee (Alfred) must hold a springing executory interest and the Grantor (Alfred) must hold a present interest in FS s.t. executory limitation. Why doesn't Alfred hold a contingent remainder (in FSA)? A: Alfred's interest does not follow after a life estate, so his interest cannot be a remainder of any kind.

Bruce conveys Blackacre "to Fred, as soon as he turns 90 years old."

Lucy holds a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent. Lucy's estate ends if she stops residing on Blackacre.The word unless is one of the keys words that creates a condition on the estate. Furthermore, the conveyance states that if the condition occurs, Blackacre would go back to the Grantor, Charlie.

Charlie conveys Blackacre "to Lucy unless she moves off of Blackacre; if she does, then it reverts back to Charlie."

Lucy holds a fee simple determinable. Lucy's right to possess Blackacre end when she stops residing on Blackacre. The word, while, is one of the keys words that creates a duration. Importantly, Blackacre goes back to Charlie - the Grantor - when the duration ends.

Charlie conveys Blackacre "to Lucy while she continues to reside on Blackacre; otherwise it reverts back to Charlie."

What state is the Title at the time of conveyance? A: Michael holds a present interest in fee simple determinable. A: Dwight holds a possibility of reverter in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Dwight's interest cuts short Michael's estate that is a fee simple determinable, so Dwight's interest must be a possibility of reverter. Dwight's estate must be fee simple absolute because there is no restriction on the estate when it goes back to Dwight.

Dwight conveys Blackacre "to Michael, while Blackacre is used as a paper-supply business."

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Michael has a present interest in fee simple s.t. condition subsequent. A: Dwight has a right of entry in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: The future interest that follows that estate, is a right of entry. Dwight holds that right in fee simple absolute b/c there is no restriction on Dwight's estate if he ultimately realizes a present interest.

Dwight conveys Blackacre "to Michael; however, Blackacre must be used as a paper-supply business; otherwise Blackacre reverts back to Dwight."

SPRINGING EXECUTORY INTEREST 3

EX. Dorothy conveys Blackacre "to Mr. Scarecrow once he graduates from college." What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Dorothy holds a present interest in fee simple s.t. executory limitation. A: Mr. Scarecrow holds a springing executory interest in FSA. EXPLANATION: Dorothy sets a condition for Mr. Scarecrow to take possession of black acre: he must first graduate from college. Hence, Dorothy retains the present interest (for now). Whenever the Grantor retains the present interest at the conveyance, the Grantee holds a springing executory interest that may cut short the Grantor's FS s.t. executory limitation.

example of applying the RAP test

EX. Mr. Darcy conveys Blackacre "to Elizabeth for lfie, remainder to my children." At the conveyance, Mr. Darcy has one child, Fritz. Does this conveyance pass the test? A: Yes. Fritz's vested remainder s.t. open (in FSA) passes the test. EXPLANATION: Is it possible for Fritz's vested remainded s.t. open to still exist after everyone living at the time of the conveyance has died? ANSWER: NO, so his interest paasses the test. As soon as Mr. Darcy dies, Mr. Darcy cannot have any more children. So at his death, no one else can join the class with Fritz to become eligible for the remainder. Thus, at the time that Mr. Darcy dies, all his children will hold an indefeasibly vested remainder. Fritz's vested remainded s.t. open cannot exist beyond the death of Mr. Darcy. Frtiz's interest passes the test.

SHIFTING EXECUTORY INTEREST Definition

EXECUTORY INTErest cuts short estate (fee simple s.t. executory limitation) or interest (vested remainder s.t. divestment) which is not held by Grantor

A: Yes. Johnny's springing executory interest passes the test. EXPLANATION: Is it possible for Johnny's springing executory interest to still exist after everyone living at the time of the conveyance has died? A: NO Johnny's executory interest can turn into present only during Johnny's life: Johnny himself must begin the television show; so if he dies, so does his springing executory interest. Thus, when everyone alive at the time of the conveyance dies (including Johnny), Johnny's executory interest can no longer exist. (The fact that the condition is tied to a 25-year time period is irrevelevant.)

Ed conveys Blackacre "to Johnny if he begins a television show in the next 25 years." DOES THIS CONVEYANCE PASS THE TEST?

What does Jerry hold at the conveyance? A: Jerry holds a present interest in life estate. What does Elaine hold at the conveyance? A: Elaine holds a reversion in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Jerry holds a life estate b/c his estate ends on his death. The Grantor, Elaine, holds the future interest that follows Jerry's life estate. That future interest must be a reversion b/c the estate goes back to the Grantor (Elaine or her heirs) once Jerry dies. The estate that Elaine holds is a fee simple absolute b/c she will realize a fee simple absolute once her reversion turns into a present interest.

Elaine conveys Blackacre "to Jerry for life."

Right of entry is what FS s.t. Condition subsequent has

FS s.t. Condition subsequent has

A: Yes. Jerry's contigent remainder passes the test. EXPLANATION: The rule requires that the contingency in Jerry's remainder must be satisfied within 21 years of the conveyance. Because the stated contigency has a 21-year deadline for the Yankees to win, the contingent remainder cannot exist beyond 21 years after everyone alive in the conveyance has died. It will eiter become a vested remainder or terminate within21 years of the conveyance.

George coneys Blackacre "to Elaine for life; remainder to Jerry if the Yankees win the Worled Series in the next 21 years." DOES THIS CONVEYANCE PASS THE TEST?

Laura holds a present interest in a life estate. George holds a reversion in FSA. Explanation Laura's estate is measured by her life ("while she is living"), so it is a life estate. The conveyance is silent as to who takes Blackacre at Laura's death, so it reverts back to the Grantor (or his heirs) at her death. George thus holds a reversion in FSA.

George conveys Blackacre "to Laura, while she is living." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

Sally holds a present interest in a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent. Harry holds a right of entry in FSA. Explanation Sally's estate is not measure by someone's lifetime, so it must be some sort of fee simple. It has a conditional restriction (i.e., on condition that). Yet the conveyance is silent as to what happens if the condition is broken. Where the conveyance is silent, the land must go back to the Grantor, Harry. Taken together, these facts necessitate that Sally's estate be a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent. Harry's interest that follows her estate must be a right of entry.

Harry conveys Blackacre "to Sally, on condition that no liquor is sold on Blackacre." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Chelsea has present interest in fee simple s.t. executory limitation A: Barack has a shifting executory interest in a life estate. A: Hillary holds a reversion in fee simple absolute. Executory Interest: EXPLANATION: Chelsea's estate may be cut short when Bill retires. If Bill retires, then Back gets Blackacre, so Barack holds the future interest following Chelsea's estate - an executory interest. Barack's estate is a life estate b/c there is a restriction of "for life" on his estate. After Barack dies, the conveys does not state what happens to Blackacre, so impliedly it goes back to the Grantor, Hillary, who would thus hold a reversion in fee simple absolute.

Hillaery conveys Blackacre "to Chelsea until Bill retires; then to Barack for life."

REVERSION

If the property is to pass to a third party, then the third party's interest is called a "remainder". (It is not a ______ because the third party never had it in the first place, so it cannot "revert" to him or her.)

Is this conveyance subject to the RAP? A: No. This conveyance does not have any of the three (1.) executory interest, 2.)contingent remainder 3.) vester remainder s.t. open) interests that subject to the rule. EXPLANATION: Billy holds a present interest (in FS s.t. condition subsequent), and Michael holds a right of entry (in FSA). Neither of those interests are subject to the RAP.

Is this conveyance subject to the RAP? 1.) EX. Michael conveys Blackacre "to Billy, but if liquor is ever sold on Blackacre, then Michael or his heirs can take Blackacre back."

means that no third party has superior title to the property than the landlord and, therefore, that no third party has the right to evict the tenant.

Legal possession . means

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Ethel holds a present interest in life estate. A: Fred holds a indefeasibly vested remainder in life estate. A: Ricky holds an indefeasibly vested remainder in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Fred's future interest is a indefeasibly vested remainder b/c it follows Ethel's life estate (and Fred is not the Grantor). Fred's estate is a life estate b/c the conveyance states that his future interest is "for life." Ricky's future interest follows after Fred's life estate, so Ricky' future interest is also an indefeasibly vested remainder. Ricky's estate is a fee simple absolute b/c there are no restrictions on it (i.e., "to Ricky.")

Lucy conveys Blackacre "to Ethel for life, then to Fred for life, then to Ricky"

What is the state of the title at conveyance? A: Peter holds a present interest in fee simple subject to condition subsequent. A: Greg holds a shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: A fee simple s.t. executory limitation is an estate that is cut short by an event (that is not death) and then goes to someone who is not the Grantor. This describes Peter's estate. The future interest that cuts short the fee simple s.t. executory limitation is a shifting executory interest, held by Greg. Greg's estate in which he holds the shifting executory interest would be fee simple absolute b/c "goes to Greg" is w/out restriction.

Marsha conveys Blackacre "to Peter so long as Peter uses it to farm; otherwise Blackacre goes to Greg."

Joseph holds a present interest in a life estate. Jacob holds an indefeasibly vested remainder in a life estate. Mary holds a reversion in FSA. Explanation The interest that follows a life estate is a remainder if held by a someone who is not the Grantor (Jacob) and a reversion if held by the Grantor (Mary). Jacob's estate is a life estate because that is what he will realize once his interest becomes a present interest.

Mary conveys Blackacre "to Joseph for life; then to Jacob for life." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

CONTINGENT REMAINDER

Mike conveys Blackacre "to Dwight for life; remainder to Jim if Jim marries Pam; otherwise remainder to Pam." What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Dwight holds a present interest in a life estate. A: Jim holds a contigent remainder in FSA. A: Pam holds a contigent remainder in FSA. EXPLANATION: Jim holds a contigent remainder b/c his remainder interest will become certain only upon the marriage occurring. Pam holds a contingent remainder as well, contingent on the marriage not occurring. Why doesn't Jim hold a vested remainder s.t. divestment? A: The language creates a condition that must be fulfilled for Jim's remainder to vest (come into the possession of). On the other hand, if the language were changed, the same condition could serve to divest Jim instead of creating the contingency (e.g., "remainder to Jim; but if he fails to marry Pam, then remainder to Pam.")

A: Yes. Fritz' vested remainder s.t. open in FSA is one of the three interests that are subject to the RAP.

Mr. Darcy conveys Blackacre "to Elizabeth for lfie, remainder to my children." At the conveyance, Mr. Darcy has one child, Fritz. Is this conveyance subject to the RAP?

A: No. Fritz's vester remainder s.t. open (fsa) does not pass the test. EXPLANATION: Is it possible for Fritz's vested remainder s.t. open to still exist after everyone living at the time of the conveyance has died. ANSWER: Yes,s o his interest fails the test. Even though Mr. Darcy cannot have more children after he dies, Mr. Darcy can still have more grandchildren after he dies. It is possible that Mr. Darcy could have a child after the conveyance, and then that child could have a child beyond 21 years after Mr, Darcy, Elizabeth and Frtitz have all died. So, grandchildren could continue joining Frtitz's vested remainded s.t. open.

Mr. Darcy conveys Blackacre "to Elizabeth for life, remainder to my GRANDchildren." At the conveyance, Mr. Darcy has one child, Fritz. DOES THIS CONVEYANCE PASS THE TEST?

EX. Napoleon conveys Blackacre "to Kip while Uncle Rico is living." What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Kip holds a present interest in a life estate (pur autre vie) Napoleon holds a reversion in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Kip's life estate is measured by Uncle Rico's life, so we call it a life estate Pur autre vie. When uncle Rico dies, Napoleon gets Blackacre back from Kip (b/c the conveyance is silent as to what happens when Kip's life estate ends). So Napoleon, the Grantor, holds the future interest that follows a life estate- i.e., a reversion. When Napoleon takes possession in the future, his estate will be in a fee simple absolute. Hence, Napoleon holds a reversion in a fee simple absolute at the time of the conveyance.

Napoleon conveys Blackacre "to Kip while Uncle Rico is living."

Alex holds a present interest in a fee simple absolute (FSA). Explanation There is no future interest that follows after someone holding a fee simple absolute estate. Also, the phrase "and his heirs" does not actually result in a transfer of rights for his heirs; it's simply an expression without any legal effect

Ollie conveys Blackacre "to Alex and his heirs." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

What is ollie's interest? What is Ollie's estate? A: Ollie's interest is a present interest. He can presently exercise possession of the land. Ollie's estate is called a fee simple absolute. This means his rights to possess the land are without restriction.

Ollie holds a present interest in fee simple absolute

RULE AGAINST PERPETUITY

Prevent some future interests from exisiting too long. The first step is to identify if any of the following future interests are present: 1.) executory interest 2.) contingent remainder 3.) vester remainder s.t. open This rule only applies to these three interets.

Joey holds a fee simple s.t. executory limitation.Rachel conveys an estate to Joey that may be cut short if Joey ever divorces anyone. That condition (divorce) would result in Blackacre going to Chris, who is not the Grantor. Hence, the estate that Rachel conveys to Joey is a fee simple s.t. executory limitation.

Rachel conveys Blackacre "to my friend, Joey; but if Joey ever divorces anyone, then to my friend, Chris."

VESTED REMAINDER S.T. Divestment definition

Remainder may be cut short by event or condition; person holding executory interest would then take over remainder.

What does Nancy hold? A: Nancy holds a present interest in a life estate. Is there a future interest in this conveyance? A: There is a future interest in this conveyance. EXPLANATION: The language of the conveyance indicates that Nancy's rights to Blackacre begin at the time of the conveyance, and last until she dies, So at the conveyance, she holds a present interest in a life estate. As for the future interest, a life estate is always followed by a future interest b/c the life estate terminates at the Grantee's death. So, then, who takes once Nancy dies? A: B/C the conveyance is silent as to what happens to Blackace after Nancy dies, the future interest that follows her death must be held by the Grantor.

Ron conveys Blackacre to Nancy "for as long as Nancy is living."

A: There are only two interests in this conveyance: a present interest (that Joey holds) and a possibility of reverter (that Ross holds). Neither of those interests are subject to the test. The rule does not apply here.

Ross conveys Blackacre "to jOEY as long as liquor is never sold on the property." DOES THIS CONVEYANCE PASS THE TEST?

VESTED REMAINDER SUBJECT TO DIVESTMENT 2

Sam conveys Blackacre "to Diane for life, then to Norm; however, if Diane quits her job as a waitress, then remainder to Carla." What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Diane holds a present interest in a life estate. A: Norm holds a ___________In FSA. A: Carla holds a shifting executory interest in FSA. EXPLANATION: Norm's remainder is subject to divestment in the event that Diane quits her job. In the event that that happens, Carla's shisting executory interest cuts short Norm's remainder. Note that Diane's interest is not affected by her quitting her job - only Norm's interest is affected.

David has a present interest in a life estate. Solomon has a indefeasibly vested remainder in a FSA Explanation David's estate is measured by his life, so it is a life estate. A third party (i.e., not the Grantor) who follows after a life estate always holds a remainder interest. Solomon's remainder is indefeasibly vested because there's no contingency that he must satisfy to realize the remainder and no condition or event will divest him of his remainder.

Saul conveys Blackacre "to David for life, then to Solomon." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

VESTED REMAINDER SUBJECT TO OPEN 3

Saul conveys Blackacre "to David for life; remainder to my financial advisers." At the conveyance, Saul has had only one financial adviser, Nathan. What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: David has a present interest in a life estate. A: Nathan has a vested remainder subject to open in FSA. EXPLANATION: Saul's conveyance of a remainder to "my financial advisors" represents a class, where members could join after the conveyance. Saul might hire another financial advisor after his conveyance to David. Hence, Saul's one adviser, Nathan, is a member of a class that others could possibly join to share in the remainder.

Ross conveys Blackacre "to Joey, but if liquor is ever sold on the property, then to Rachel." Q: What language should be struck? What is the state of the title? A: The language "but if liquor is ever sold on the property, then to Rachel" must be struck. After that, the state of the title is: Joey holds a present interest in a fee simple absolute. Explanation As stated in the previous example, Rachel's shifting executory interest violates the Rule test. So her interest must be struck. But if we strike only the words "otherwise to Rachel" the remaining language does not make sense. It makes no sense to read: "Ross conveys Blackacre 'to Joey, but if liquor is ever sold on the property.'" It is an incomplete sentence! Hence, in striking the offending interest, we must strike all the way back until what remains makes sense. In this case, that would leave only "Ross conveys Blackacre 'to Joey.'" Only then can the conveyance be read without Rachel's interest and still make sense.

Strike interest

Franklin holds a present interest in fee simple determinable. Teddy holds a possibility of reverter in FSA. Explanation Franklin's estate lasts for a duration (as indicated by the key word, while), and it is not measured by someone's life. That estate must be a fee simple determinable because once the duration ends, the future interest goes back to the Grantor, Teddy. The future interest that follows a fee simple determinable is a possibility of reverter, which Teddy thus holds.

Teddy conveys Blackacre "to Franklin, while he is gainfully employed." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

RAP DETAILS

The formal definition of the Rule Against Perpetuities is not the best tool for teaching it. But that formal definition is so common in law schools, that I'd better include a note on it. Here goes: Formal definition: "No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest." (John Chipman Gray). 1. "No interest" does not actually mean any interest. It means any of three interests that could not be vested in someone who is not the Grantor: i.e., contingent remainder; executory interest; and vested remainder subject to open. 2. The word "vested" refers to the time at which the interest holder is ascertainable and the interest becomes definite. If an interest is vested, then there's no possible way that the holder of that interest (or her heirs) won't eventually realize a present interest in the estate. 3. The phrase "life in being at the creation of the interest" means someone who is living at the time of the conveyance. 4. The phrase "21 years after some life in being" refers to a possible outcome that could occur 21 years after everyone alive at the time of the interest has died. 5. In sum, none of the three interests is allowed to exist longer than 21 years after everyone alive at the conveyance has died. Within that time period, those interests must either vest--and thereby become a different interest--or alternatively, they must terminate. If it is logically possible for one of the three interests to exist beyond that time period, the interest violates the Rule.--

a determinable estate, which automatically terminates upon the occurrence of the specified event

The language "so long as" is indicative of a

VESTED REMAINDER SUBJECT TO OPEN 2

Thelma conveys Blackacre "to Louise for life; remainder to my children." Thelma has one child, Trina, alive at the time of the conveyance. What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Louise has a present interest in a life estate. A: Trina holds a vested remainder subject to open in FSA. EXPLANATION: Thelma's conveyance of a remainder to "my children" creates a class that is open. Thelma could have more children after the conveyance who would join the class and share in the remainder. Why isn't this a contingent remainder? A: If Thelma had no children at the time of the conveyance, the remainder would have been contingent on any unborn children being born. But at the conveyance, there is a born child, Trina. The remainder therefore is vested in Trina at the conveyance. The possibility of additional children being born represents the open nature of the named class, i.e., her children. Hence, Trina's interest is a vested remainder s.t. open - not a contingent remainder.

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Garth holds a present interest in fee simple s.t. condition subsquent. A: Wayne holds a right of entry in fee simple absolute.

Wayne conveys Blackacre "to Garth, unless my sister, Fay returns from Europe."

What states is the title at the conveyance? A: Garth has a present interest in fee simple determinable. A: Wayne has a possibility of reverter in fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Garth holds an estate that is fee simple determinable b/c the duration does not depend on someone's death, the duration is introduced by the key word "until," and the future interest is held by Grantor, Wayne. Note: Fay does not hold anything; her actions may trigger the estate transfer, but she herself does not gain any property rights.

Wayne conveys Blackacre "to Garth, until my sister, Fay, returns from Europe."

CONTINGENT REMAINDER 4

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Sarah holds a present interest in a life estate. A: Children holds a contingent remainder in FSA. A: Abraham holds a contingent remainder in FSA. EXPLANATION: The yet-to-be-born children of Abraham have a remainder that is contingent on their being born. In the event that Abraham never has children, Blackacre reverts back to him. So Abraham holds a reversion (in FSA)

What is the state of the title at the conveyance? A: Edward holds a present interest in a life estate. A: Diana has a indefeasibly vested remainder in a life estate. A: William holds a reversion in a fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: Diane's future interest follows Edward's life estate and she is not the Grantor, so her future interest must be a indefeasibly vested remainder. Diana's estate is a life estate b/c she takes Blackacre "for life." Notably, the conveyance is silent as to what happens once Diana dies. This means that the her life estate ends, the Grantor (William) impliedly has a right of possession again. William, then, holds the future interest that follows Diana's life estate-a reversion.

William conveys Blackacre "to Edward for life; then to Diana for life."

Diana holds a present interest in fee simple determinable. Zeus holds a possibility of reverter in FSA. Explanation Diana's estate must be some sort of fee simple because it is not measured by someone's life. It is a fee simple determinable because the key words "as long as" indicate that the estate lasts for a duration and because the future interest goes back to the Grantor. The future interest that follows a fee simple determinable is a possibility of reverter, which Zeus thus holds (in FSA).

Zeus conveys Blackacre "to Diana, for as long as she cares for dogs on the property." Q: What is the state of the title at the conveyance?

contigent remainder

a remainder that becomes certain (or vests) only upon some contingency being fulfilled. That is, for a contingent remainder to eventually become a present interest, some event or condition must occur. IMPORTANT NOTE: Every _____ remainder has two possibilities: either the _____ will be fulfilled or it won't be fulfilled. This means that where there's one ______ remainder (reflecting the possibility that it will be fulfilled), there must be another ______ remainder or a reversion (reflecting the possibility that the ____ will not be fulfilled).

Indefeasibly Vested Remainder

a remainder that will necessarily become a present interest when the life estate ends. That is, nothing will stop the remainder from becoming a present interest. 1.) EX. Clark conveys Blackacre "to Lois for life; then to Jimmy" What do Lois hold at the conveyance? A: Lois holds a present interest in a life estate. What does Jimmy hold at the conveyance? A: Jimmy holds an _________ in a fee simple absolute. EXPLANATION: There is no event that will interfere with, or cut short, Jimmy's remainder that follows after Lois's life estate. Nor is there any condition that must be fulfilled for Jimmy to realize his remainder in Blackacre. So, Jimmy's remainder must be _______.

Fee Simple Subject to Executory Limitation

a right to possess land that may be cut short when an event or condition occurs that is not death. Importantly, when the condition or event occurs, the right of possession must transfer to a 3rd party.

a right of entry can only be held by

can only be held the grantor. The grantor has discretion whether to exercise it once the condition occurs.

CONTINGENT REMAINDER DEFINITION

contingency must be fulfilled before remainder vests (or in other words, becomes definite)

each estate

describes whether the right of possession has restrictions

For a vested remainder subject to complete divestment, an event must occur causing the party to lose his interest; for a contingent remainder, an event must occur causing the party to obtain his interest.

differnece between vested remainded s.t. complete divestment and contingent remainder is

SPRINGING EXECUTORY INTEREST Definition

executory interest cuts short present interst held by Grantor (in fee simple s.t. executory limitation)

Possibility of reverter 1

follows FS Determinable; NOT held by Grantor

Right of entry 1

follows FS s.t. Condition Subsequent; NOT held by Grantor

Executory Interest 1

follows FS s.t. Executory Limitation; NOT held by Grantor

reversion

follows life estate; held by Grantor

I D O C

indefeasibly divestment open contingent

A person's ownership rights should always be stated as

interest in estate

an indefeasibly vested remainder

it is created in an ascertained company, is certain to become possessory, and is not subject to being defeated, divested, or diminished in size

indefeasibly vested definition

nothing will interfere w/ the remainder following the life estate.

fee simple estate.

only an executory interest can follow a

Who holds the present interest at the time of the conveyance? --Martha holds the present interest (in a life estate) Who holds the future interest at the time of the conveyance? ---Patsy holds the future interest. The specific name of her future interest is called a indefeasibly vested remainder. The specific name of her estate is fee simple absolute. Thus, at the time of the conveyance, we state Patsy's ownership in Blackacre as: Patsy holds a indefeasibly vested remainder in fee simple absolute.

present and future interest: George conveys Blackacre "to Martha for life; then when Martha dies, Blackacre goes to Patsy."

VESTED REMAINDER S.T. OPEN definition

remainder conveyed to a class of persons where it is possible for additional persons to join that class

interest

represents WHEN a person may exercise their right to possess land. It's all about time. A person may have a right to possess land at the present time, or alternatively, a right to possess land in the future.

FEE SIMPLE

represents a right to possess land that may last forever, or until some condition or event occurs (that is not death). It depends on which type of FS estate a Grantor transfers to Grantee.

There are two types of executory interests

shifting and springing

right of entry

the future interest that cuts short the estate called a fee simple s.t. condition subsequent

REMAINDER

the name of the future interest that follows after a life estate, but only where the land goes to a 3rd party once the life estate ends.

pur autre vie (when Bill retires) is NOT CORRECT HERE b/c it is not based on Bill's life ending... but his retirement.

to Chelsea until Bill retires (pur autre vie or nah?)

difference between vested remainder subject to divestment and contingent remainder

vested: the remainder is given to a presently existing and ascertained person contingent: it is given to an unascertained or unborn person

possibility of reverter 4

when grantor transfer a fee simple determinable to grantee, grantor retains an interest that is called _______, which follows after grantee's estate.

remainder 2

when grantor transfers a life estate to Grantee and designates that third party's estates begin once Grantee dies, Third party's interest is called

reversion

when grantor transfers a life estate to Grantee, and retains the right to possess the land once Grantee dies, Grantor's interest (future) is called

Answer option D is correct (The grantor, because the grantor retained a possibility of reverter that took effect when the nephew violated the restriction against hunting on the property.) Here, the grantor conveyed a life estate to his nephew, followed by a remainder to his niece. While the nephew is still alive, the niece has a vested remainder, subject to complete divestment, should the property ever be used for hunting purposes. Upon the nephew's death, the niece's interest becomes a present interest, a fee simple determinable. If the property is used for hunting purposes, either before or after the nephew's death, the property will revert to the original grantor, or his heirs if he is deceased. Traditionally, a reversion followed a life estate and a possibility of reverter followed a fee simple determinable. Thus, the grantor has a possibility of reverter, rather than a reversion. However, there is no longer any legal distinction between a reversion and a possibility of reverter, so the exact classification of the grantor's reversion interest is unimportant. Answer option C (The niece, because interest in the property immediately and automatically passed to her upon the nephew's violating the restriction against hunting on the property.) is incorrect because the niece's interest in the property was a vested remainder, subject to complete divestment. The instant the restriction was violated, even by someone other than the niece, the niece was completely divested of any interest she had in the property and the property reverted to the grantor's heirs.

A grantor conveyed property on the following terms: "To my nephew, for life, then to my niece, as long as the property is never used for hunting purposes." After inheriting the property, the nephew conducted a foxhunt on the property. The grantor's niece was aware of the foxhunt but took no action against the nephew. Who now has legal possession of the property?

The garbage collection company owns the tract of land in fee simple absolute because the city had a fee simple absolute, which it conveyed to the company. The language in the deed "for the purpose of constructing a planetarium" merely expresses the grantor's motive for conveying the property; the city received the estate that the grantor had, a fee simple absolute. Because the city held a fee simple absolute, that is what it conveyed to the company. (A) (The grantor's conveyance to the city created a fee simple determinable in the city and a possibility of reverter in the grantor.) is wrong because the grant does not create a fee simple determinable. A fee simple determinable is an estate that automatically terminates on the happening of a stated event. To create a fee simple determinable, durational language (e.g., "for so long as," "until") must be used. Here, the grant does not contain the durational language necessary to create a fee simple determinable. Because the interest is not a fee simple determinable, the grantor cannot have a possibility of reverter. (B) (Upon conveyance of the land to the company, the property reverted back to the grantor.)is wrong for two reasons: (i) as explained above, a fee simple determinable was not created by the grant; and (ii) even if a fee simple determinable had been created, the transfer of the property would not by itself cause it to revert back to the grantor. Determinable estates are alienable; the successor merely takes subject to the condition. The conveyance of a fee simple determinable would not automatically result in the property reverting to the grantor (i.e., the company could build a planetarium on the property and avoid the property reverting back to the grantor). (D) (The company owns the land, but it will revert to the grantor or his successors in interest if the property is used for anything other than a planetarium.) is wrong because the grant did not create a fee simple determinable. (Had the grant contained the proper durational language, rather than "for the purpose of," (D) would have been correct. In that case, the company would own the land subject to the estate being terminated if the land is not used for a planetarium.)

A grantor executed a valid deed conveying a tract of land to a city "for the purpose of constructing a planetarium thereon." The city held the property for a number of years, but decided on another site for the planetarium. When presented an offer to purchase the property by a privately owned garbage collection company, the city accepted and conveyed the land to the company. Which of the following statements about the title of the tract of land is true?

Answer option D (A vested remainder subject to complete divestment.) is correct. A future interest in property is vested when it is granted to a person who is born and whose identity is presently ascertainable. Additionally, there must be no conditions precedent to the complete vesting of rights in the remainderman. Here, the grantor conveyed a life estate to his brother, followed by a life estate to the brother's son. The grantor, by granting less than his full interest in the property, necessarily retained a reversion, even if the instrument of conveyance did not state so explicitly. The brother's son, as a living and ascertainable person, has a vested interest. However, if the brother's son dies before the brother does, he will never be able to take his life estate and will lose all interest in the property. Therefore, the brother's son's interest in the property is subject to complete divestment. Answer option A (An indefeasibly vested remainder.) is incorrect because the brother's son's interest is not indefeasibly vested; it will be subject to complete divestment if he predeceases his father. Answer option B (A contingent remainder.)is incorrect because the brother's son's interest is vested, not contingent. For a vested remainder subject to complete divestment, an event must occur causing the party to lose his interest; for a contingent remainder, an event must occur causing the party to obtain his interest. Answer option C (A vested remainder subject to open.) is incorrect because an interest is subject to open if there is the possibility that the remainderman's share will be diluted through the existence of other potential class members, not where the remainderman's share may be lost entirely due to the occurrence of a future event.

A grantor who owned property in fee simple absolute conveyed the property to his brother, for life, and then to the brother's son, for life. At the time of the conveyance, both the grantor's brother and the brother's son were alive. Which of the following accurately describes the interest of the brother's son at the time of the conveyance?

Explanation: Answer option D (Neither of the conveyances.)is correct. The rule against perpetuities states that no interest in property is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest. Restatement (First) of Property § 374 (1944). If by any conceivable combination of circumstances, it is possible that the interest may not vest within the period of the rule, the limitation is void. The perpetuities period begins at the creation of the interest, which, for a deed, is the date when the deed is operative. There are six types of interests that are potentially subject to the rule against perpetuities because they may not vest within the perpetuities period: (1) contingent remainders, (2) executory interests, (3) options to purchase property, (4) class gifts, (5) rights of first refusal, and (6) powers of appointment. Here, neither of the grantor's conveyances violates the rule against perpetuities. The conveyance of parcel 1 created a life estate for the grantor's brother, followed by a fee simple determinable for the grantor's sister. The sister's interest will vest immediately upon the death of the brother, who is a life in being. The only other possible change in interest in the property is if the property is no longer used as a farm. At first, this condition would appear to violate the rule against perpetuities, because it could occur at any time, including more than 21 years after the death of anyone currently living. However, if a future owner does stop using the property as a farm, all interest will revert to the grantor (or his heirs). Future interests of a grantor, such as reversions, possibilities of reverter, and rights of entry, are not subject to the rule against perpetuities. Id. at § 372. The conveyance of parcel 2 created a conditional fee simple subject to an executory limitation for the grantor's son, and an executory interest for the grantor's daughter. The son's interest in the parcel is contingent upon him using the property as a farm. If the son ever uses the property for any other purpose, the property will then go to the daughter. The condition limits only the son's usage of the property, not all future usage. If the son uses the property for any purpose other than a farm during his lifetime, the property will pass to the daughter in fee simple absolute. Otherwise, the property will pass to the son's heirs in fee simple absolute upon the son's death. Regardless, all interest in the property will be vested, at the latest, upon the death of the son, who is a life in being. Note that if the conveyance had limited all future use of the property, rather than just limiting the son's use of the property, the conveyance would have violated the rule against perpetuities.

A grantor who owned two pieces of farm property in fee simple absolute conveyed his property by deed on the following terms: parcel 1 to his brother for life, and then to his sister, so long as the property continued to be used as a farm; parcel 2 to his son in fee simple, so long as the son continued to use the property as a farm, and if not, then to his daughter. Which of the conveyances, if any, violates the rule against perpetuities?