Possessory Interests - Property Adaptibar Set 1
A testator devised his farm "to my son for life, then to my son's children and their heirs and assigns." The son, a widower, had two unmarried adult children. In an appropriate action to construe the will, the Court will determine that the remainder to the children is: a) Indefeasibly Vested b) Contingent c) Vested subject to partial defeasance d) Vested subject to complete defeasance
B) Vested subject to partial defeasance
A landowner died, validly devising his land to his wife "for life or until remarriage" and then to their daughter. Shortly after the landowner's death, his daughter executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey the land to her friend. A year later, the daughter died intestate, with her mother, the original landowner's wife, as her sole heir. The following month, the wife remarried. The wife then executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey the land to her new husband as a wedding gift. Who now owns what interest in the land? a) the daughter's friend owns the fee simple b) the wife owns the fee simple c) the wife's new husband has a life estate in the land for the wife's life, with the remainder in the daughter's friend. d) the wife's new husband owns the fee simple.
a) the daughter's friend owns the fee simple. the landowner's wife had a determinable life estate, evidenced by the words "for life" and "until remarriage" in the landowner's will. The daughter had a vested remainder and an executory interest. Both of the daughter's interests could be assigned to the friend. ON the remarriage of the landowner's wife, the wife's determinable life estate ended and the land automatically went to the holder of the future interest, the daughter's friend.
A widower owns in fee simple a ranch, Ranchacre. The widower has one child who is married. In an effort to dispose of Ranchacre to his descendants and to honor a request by the grandchild that she be skipped in any disposition, the widower conveys Ranchacre to his son for life with the remainder to the grandchild's children in fee simple. What interest, if any, is created in favor of the grandchild's unborn children at the time of the conveyance? a) a contingent remainder b) a vested remainder subject to divestment c) a springing use d) a vested remainder subject to open.
a) a contingent remainder: Since the son has a life estate, the future interest is a remainder. It is contingent in this case because the grandchild (grandchildren) have to be born or ascertained before their interest can vest. This is a precedent condition that prevents the interest from vesting immediately.
Six years ago, the owner of Blackacre in fee simple executed and delivered to a widower an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to the widower and his heirs. At that time, the widower had one child. Three years ago, the widower executed and delivered to a buyer an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to the buyer. The child did not join in the deed. The buye rwas/still is unmarried and childless. The only possible applicable statute in the jurisdiction states that any deed will be construed to convey the grantor's entire estate, unless expressly limited. Last month, the widower died, never having remarried. His child is his only heir. Blackacre is now owned by: a) the child, because the widower's death ended the buyer's life estate pur autre vie. b) the buyer in fee simple pursuant to the widower's deed c) the child and the buyer as tenants in common of equal shares d) the child and the buyer as joint tenants, because both survived the widower.
b) the buyer in fee simple pursuant to the widower's deed the owner conveyed Blackacre to the widower in fee simple. The language indicating that it was made to the widower and his heirs does not create an interest in the child. Because the widower holds the land in fee simple, his ownership will not be terminated by the happening of any subsequent condition, and he is free to transfer the land to whomever he wishes.
The owner of Greenacre owned the land in fee simple. By warranty deed, he conveyed Greenacre to a friend for life, "and from and after the death of my friend to my uncle, his heirs and assigns." Subsequently, the uncle died, devising all of his estate to a hospital. The uncle was survived by his daughter, his sole heir-at-law. Shortly, thereafter the friend died, survived by the owner, the hospital, and the daughter. Title to Greenacre now is in: a) The owner, because the contingent remainder never vested, and the owner's reversion was entitled to possession immediately upon the friend's death. b) the hospital, because the vested remainder in the uncle was transmitted by his will. c) the daughter, because she is the uncle's heir d) either the owner or the daughter, depending upon whether the destructibility of contingent remainders is recognized in the applicable jurisdiction.
b) the hospital, because the vested remainder in the uncle was transmitted by his will. facts indicate that friend has life estate, uncle has a vested remainder his heirs have a vested remainder subject to open
At the time of his death last week, the testator owned Blackacre, a small farm. By his duly probated will, drawn five years ago, the testator did the following: (1) Devised Blackacre to [my nephew] for the life of [my brother], then to [my sister] (2) gave "all the rest, residue and remainder of my Estate, both real and personal, to [my friend]." At his death, the testator was survived by his nephew, his sister, the testator's son and sole heir, and his friend. The testator's brother had died a week before the testator. Title to Blackacre is now in: a) the nephew for life, remainder to the sister b) the sister, in fee simple. c) the son, in fee simple d) the friend in fee simple
b) the sister, in fee simple. the grant conveyed a life estate to nephew per autre vie for the life of the brother. When the brother died. so did the life estate, the nephew's interest terminated.
Twenty years ago, a testator who owned Blackacre, a one-tract of land, duly delivered a deed of Blackacre "to the school district so long as it is used for school purposes." The deed was promptly and properly recorded. Five years ago, the testator died leaving his son as his only heir, but by his duly probated will, he left "all my Estate to my friend." Last month, the school district closed its school on Blackacre and for valid consideration duly executed and delivered a quitclaim deed of Blackacre to a developer, who planned to use th eland for commercial development. The developer has now brought an appropriate action to quiet title against the testator's son, the friend, and the school district. The only applicable statute is a provision in the jurisdiction's probate code which provides that any property interest which is descendible is devisable. In such action, the court should find that title is now in a) the developer b) the son c) the friend d) the school district
c) the friend
A man owned Blackacre in fee simple and by his will specifically devised Blackacre as follows: "To my daughter, her heirs and assigns, but if my daughter dies survived by a husband and a child or children, then to my daughter's husband during his lifetime with remainder to my daughter's children, their heirs and assigns. Specifica;ly provided, however that if my daughter dies survived by a husband and no child, Blackacre is specifically devised to my nephew, his heirs and assigns." While the man's will was in probate, the nephew quitclaimed all interest in Blackacre to the daughter's husband. Three years later, the daughter died, survived by her husband but no children. The daughter left a will devising her interest in Blackacre to her husband. The only applicable statute provides that any interest in land is freely alienable. The nephew instituted an appropriate action against the husband to establish title to Blackacre. Judgment should be for: a) The nephew, because his quitclaim deed did not transfer his after acquired title. b) the nephew because the husband took nothing under the man's will. c) the husband, because the nephew had effectively conveyed his interest to the husband. d) the husband, because the doctrine of after acquired title applies to a devise by will.
c) the husband, because the nephew had effectively conveyed his interest to the husband. the daughter died survived by a husband but no children, so according to the man's will, the land goes to the nephew in fee simple. The nephew however has quitclaimed his interest in the land to the husband. Therefore the nephew's quitclaimed interest to the land in fee simple went to the husband.
A farmer owned Purpleacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By will duly admitted to probate after his death, the farmer devised Purpleacre to "any wife who survives me with remainder to such of my children as are living at her death." The farmer was survived by his wife and by three adult children. Thereafter, one of the children died and by will duly admitted to probate devised his entire estate to a friend. The remaining two siblings were the deceased sibling's heirs at law. Later the wife died. In an appropriate lawsuit to which the two remaining siblings and the friend are parties, title to Purpleacre is at issue. In such lawsuit, judgment should be that title to Purpleacre is in: a) The two siblings and the friend because the earliest vesting of remainders is favored and reference to the wife's death should be construed as relating to time of taking possession. b) the two siblings and the friend because the provision requiring survival of children violates the REP since the surviving wife might have been a person unborn at the time of writing of the will. c) the two remaining siblings, because the deceased sibling's remainder must descend by intestacy and is not devisable. d) the two remaining siblings, because the remainders were contingent upon surviving the life tenant
d) the two remaining siblings, because the remainders were contingent upon surviving the life tenant.
A testator owned Blackacre, a vacant one-acre tract of land. Five years ago, he executed a deed conveying Blackacre to "the church for the purpose of erecting a church building thereon." Three years ago, the testator died, leaving his son as his sole heir at law. His duly probated will left: "all my estate, both real and personal, to my friend." The church never constructed a church building on Blackacre and last month, the church, for valid consideration, conveyed Blackacre to a developer. The developer brought an appropriate action to quiet title against the son, the friend, the church, and joined the appropriate state official. Such official asserted that a charitable trust was created which has not terminated. In such action, the court should find that title is now in: a) the developer b) the son c) the friend d) the state official
a) the developer Pay close attention to the language used in the conveyance to the church. The testator's language did not create a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent or a fee simple determinable. Instead, the testator used the language "for the purpose that" which has no effect on the title, so the church held fee simple absolute. Therefore, after the church transferred title to the developer, the developer held in fee simple.
The owner of Greenacre, a tract of land, owned it in fee simple. Five years ago, he executed and delivered to a woman an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed that conveyed Greenacre to the woman "for and during the term of her natural life." No other estate or interest or person taking an interest was mentioned. The woman took possession of Greenacre and has remained in possession. Fifteen onths ago, the owner died, leaving a will that has been duly admitted to probate. The will, inter alia, had the following provision: "I devise Greenacre to my best friend for her natural life and from and after her death to my cousin, his heirs and assigns, forever." Administration of the owner's estate has been completed. The best friend claims the immediate right to possession of Greenacre. The cousin also asserts a right to immediate possession. In an appropriate lawsuit to which the woman, the best friend, and the cousin are parties, who should be adjudged to have the right to immediate possession? a) The woman, because no subsequent act of the owner would affect her life estate b) The best friend, because the owner's will was the final and definitive expression of his intent. c) the best friend because the woman's estate terminated with the death of the owner d) the cousin, because the woman's estate terminated with the owner's death and all that the owner had was the right to transfer, his reversion in fee simple.
a) the woman, because no subsequent act of the owner would affect her life estate