Property Cumulative

O conveys "to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B does not survive A to C and his heirs."

"B does not have a contingent remainder. B has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to divestment; C has a shifting executory interest which can become possessory only by divesting B's remainder" A: LE; B: vested remainder in FS subject to divestment; C: shifting executory interest

Common Law Rule Against Perpetuities

"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creating of the interest." *21 means "one generation" essentially *RAP wants to prevent remote vesting *RAP overrides, ignores, doesn't care about the grantor's intent

Fee Simple in common law has to say

"and his heirs"

4 differences between whether a remainder is vested or contingent:

(1) A vested remainder accelerates into possession whenever and however the preceding estate ends; A contingent remainder cannot become possessory so long as it remains contingent. (2) At common law a contingent remainder, with a few exceptions, was not assignable during the remainderman's life and hence was unreachable by creditors (modern trend is different today, but a few states follow this rule) (3) At common law, contingent remainders were destroyed if they did not vest upon termination of the preceding life estate, whereas vested remainder were not destructible in this manner. (4) Contingent remainders are subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities, whereas vested remainders are not.

O conveys "to A for life, then to A's children who shall reach 21." A's oldest child, B is 17. Is the remainder vested or contingent? B subsequently reaches 21. Is the remainder vested or contingent?

(1) A: life estate; A's children: contingent remainder in FSA; O: reversion (2) A: life estate; B: vested remainder subject to open; A's children: executory interest in FSA

O conveys "to A for life, then to B for life, then to C and her heirs." What interests are created? Suppose the remainder to C had been "then to C an her heirs if C survives A and B." What interests are created?

(1) A: life estate; B: vested remainder in life estate; C: vested remainder in FSA (2) A: life estate; B: vested remainder in life estate; C: contingent remainder in FSA; O: reversion

Mechanics of RAP

(1) Determine whether the future interest in question is even subject to the Rule, only: contingent remainders, executory interests, and class gifts. (2) Determine whether the given interest might not vest within the perpetuity period of "lives in being plus 21 years." *strikes down contingent interests that might vest too remotely *It is a rule of logical proof- you must prove a contingent interest is certain to vest or terminate no later than 21 years after the death of some person alive at the creation of the interest. If you cannot prove that, then the contingent interest is void from the outset.

A remainder is vested if:

(1) it is given to an ascertained person; AND (2) it is not subject to a condition precedent (other than the natural termination of the preceding estate)

A remainder is contingent if:

(1) it is given to an unascertained person; OR (2) it is made contingent upon some event occurring other than the natural termination of the preceding estates.

Who is generally entitled to the full award after a condemnation?

100% goes to the present interest- general rule

O conveys "to A and B for their joint lives, then to the survivor in fee simple." Is the remainder vested or contingent?

A and B: Joint life estate Survivor: contingent remainder in FSA O: reversion Treating contingent remainder as an unascertained survivor

O conveys Blackacre to A and Her heirs on the condition that if Blackacre is used for any purpose other than agricultural purposes, then to B.

A has FSSEL B has Executorial Interest (in Fee Simple Absolute)

O conveys Blackacre "to A and her heirs SO LONG AS Blackacre is used for residential purposes only." What is the state of title in Blackacre at common law?

A has Fee Simple Determinable and O has a Possibility of Reverter (in Fee Simple Absolute)

O conveys to "A and his heirs, but if A dies without issue surviving him, to B and her heirs."

A has a possessory fee simple subject to an executory limitation (or subject to divestment by B's executory interest). B's future interest can become possessory only by divesting A. Issue is children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

O transfers a sum "in trust for A for life, then to A's first child to reach 21."

A is the validating life. You can prove that any child of A who reaches 21 will necessarily reach 21 within 21 years of A's death. the remainder must vest or fail within this period; it cannot possibly vest more than 21 years after A dies. The remainder is valid. A: life estate; B's child: contingent remainder; O: reversion If A has a child who turns 21 while A is alive, it becomes vested and not RAP.

O conveys Blackacre to A and her heirs, BUT IF Blackacre is used for any purpose other than agricultural purposes, then O has the right to re-enter and take possession of the land. What is the state of title in Blackacre at common law?

A: FSSCS O: Right of Re-entry or Power of Termination (in fee simple absolute) A future interest is presently existing, but in future possession.

O conveys to "A for 20 years."

A: leasehold estate (term of years) O: reversion

O conveys "to A for life, then to B and her heirs,"

A: life estate B: Vested Remainder in Fee Simple Absolute

O conveys "to a for life, then to B and her heirs if B attains the age of 21 before A dies." (a) when she turns 21

A: life estate B: contingent remainder in fee simple absolute O: Reversion in fee simple absolute (a) A: life estate; B: vested remainder in fee simple absolute

O, owner of Blackacre, comes to you to draft an instrument of gift. O tells you he wants to convey Blackacre to go to A's children if any are alive or, if none are alive, to O's daughter B.

A: life estate; A's Children: contingent remainder; B: contingent remainder; O: reversion It is simultaneous. If two different events, then it is alternative. Once A has children and dies, the remainder vests so NOT alternative contingent remainders.

O conveys "to a for life, then to A's widow, if any, for life, then to A's issue then living."

A: life estate; A's widow: contingent remainder in life estate; A's living issue: contingent remainder; O: reversion

O conveys to A for life, then to B if B attains the age of 30.

A: life estate; B: contingent remainder; O: reversion A's interest is valid, vested now. O's interest is valid. B's interest is valid. there is no way this interest can vest in anybody no more than 21 years after B dies. B is the validating life, not A. It will vest within 21 years of the life of B.

O conveys "to A for life, and in the event of A's death to B and her heirs." Is B's remainder vested or contingent? If subsequently conveys her interest back to O, what does O have?

A: life estate; B: vested remainder in FSA; "in the event of A's death" is surplus (doesn't matter) different than if B survives A. A: life estate; O: vested remainder in FSA (B can only convey what he has to O)

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, then to B for life." O subsequently dies with a will devising all of O's property to C. Then A and B dies. Then when O dies?

A: life estate; B: vested remainder in life estate; O: reversion in FSA A: life estate; B: vested remainder in life estate; C: reversion in FSA

O conveys "to A for life, then to A's children who reach 25." A has a child, age 26. Is the remainder valid?

A: life estate; B: vested remainder subject to open; A's unborn children: executory interest. * It's an EI because it's an interest that has to divest. This interest of unborn children, it's going to do it by divesting a part interest.

O, conveys "to A for life, then to such of A's children as survive him, but if none of A's children survives him, to B and her heirs."

A: life estate; C, D, and A's unborn children: alternate contingent remainder; B: alternate contingent remainder; O: reversion They are alternate because when one vests the other fails AT THE SAME TIME.

O, owner of Blackacre, comes to you to draft an instrument of gift. O tells you he wants to convey Blackacre to go to a's children if any are alive, or if none are alive, to O's daughter B. Two years after C and D are born to A.

A: life estate; C, D, and unborn children: vested remainder subject to open and subject to divestment; B and A's unborn children: executory interest. B's executory interest is tied to vested remainder subject to divestment; unborn children executory interest is tied to vested remainder subject to open.

O conveys "to A for life, then to B if B gives A a proper funeral"

B cannot have a remainder kind because B cannot give A a proper funeral at the moment of A's death. A: life estate; O: reversion in FSSEL; B: executory interest in FSA B's heirs could give A a proper funderal (it is devisable AND inheritable) *B doesn't give proper funeral ** O: FSA *B gives proper funeral **B: FSA

O conveys "to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B dies under the age of 21, to C and her heirs." B is age 15.

B has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to executory limitation (or subject to divestment by C's executory interest if B dies under age 21). A: life estate; B: vested remainder subject to divestment A dies, B is under 21- B: FSSEL A dies, B is 21 C: FSSEL; B: Executory limitation (grantors do not like testators to take before 21)

O conveys "to A for life, then to B and the heirs of her body."

Common Law A: life estate; B: Vested remainder (in fee tail); O: reversion (in FSA) Now A: life estate; B: Vested remainder in fee simple absolute

Problem: O --> A for life, then to B forever

Common law: A has a life estate and the remainder to B is a life estate (not a fee simple because it did not use the magic words "and his heirs")- THEN when B dies it reverts back to O. Today: A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple - B dies before A then it goes to B's heirs or devisees

Fee Tail History

Could have fee tail only to male issue- or female (rare in common law) or Fee Tail Special "children of a specific person" In common law it created a fee simple conditional, but Parliament passed a statute to get rid of it. Does not exist in the US (except for Iowa & South Carolina, which created their own) Almost every state has abolished fee tail

Fee simple subject to executory limitation

Created when a grantor transfers a defesible fee simple, either a determinable fee or a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, and in the same instrument creates a future interest in a third party rather than in himself. the future interest in the third party is called an executory interest. O conveys land "to the Hartford School Board, but if it ceases to use the land as a school, to the City Library." - if the condition is violated, it is forfeited AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT RE-ENTRY

What does devises mean?

Died with a will

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent

Does not end automatically but can be cut short; O conveys Whiteacre "to the Hartford School Board, its successors, and assigns, but if the premises are not used for school purposes, the grantor has a right to re-enter and retake the premises." The Board's fee simple may be cut short if O elects to exercise the right of entry, but it is not automatically terminated when the stated event happens. Unless the entry is made, the fee simple continues.

O --> A and the heirs of his body

FEE TAIL- "to A (words of purchase- who) and the heirs of his body (words of limitation- what)"

Best Interest

Fee Simple

A limiting granting clause is likely to give rise to what?

Fee Simple Determinable

A full granting clause is likely to give rise to what?

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent

Freehold Estates v. Nonfreehold Estates

Freehold: normal tenures of feudal times Nonfreehold: leases

Remainder and Reversions

Future Interests

Holographic Will

Handwritten; about 1/2 states recognize and SD is one of them

White v. Brown

I, Jessie Lide, wish Evelyn white to have my home to live in and not be sold. I also leave my personal property to Sandra White Perry. My house is not to be sold. * The court calls the "home not to be sold" as "a restraint on alienation" - so the court strikes it as an invalid restraint on alienation & everyone knows that a FS is freely alienable; majority holds White was given a FS.

What is the worst alienation of a future interest?

If you try to sell a right of entry. FSSCS- The person who owns the property now is Mother Theresa, she conveys an interest (FSSCS) she decides to sell her right to entry to Sadam Hussein- you own the FSSCS has your interest been effected? Yes. Selling a right of entry can have a dramatic effect on the present interest. EX: Vickrey selling his right of entry to an aggressive real estate company.

What are the remedies if a restrictive covenant is violated?

Injunction or damages

Fee simple determinable

It will end automatically when a stated event happens; O conveys Blackacre "to the Hartford School Board, its successors and assigns, so long as the premises are use for school purposes." If the land ceases to be used for school purposes, it will come to an end and will revert back to O, the grantor; Every fee simple is accompanied by a future interest - in the example above, to o or his heirs (called a possibility of reverter)

O conveys Whiteacre "to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B survives A."

O has a reversion in fee simple that is not certain to become possessory. If B dies before A, O will be entitled to possession at A's death. On the other hand, if A dies before B, O's reversion is divested on A's death and will never become possessory.

Life Estates

Present estates

Future Interest

Present interest but in future possession Can be taxable before possession

Interests retained by the transferor, known as:

Reversion Possibility of reverter Right of entry (synonymous with power of termination)

Partial Intestacy (White v. Brown)

The court thinks it is happening here is a will is creating and controlling a Life Estate but the laws of intestate succession are controlling the rest of the timeline.

O conveys "to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B survives A."

The language if B survives A subject's B's remainder to a condition precedent. B can take possession only if B survives A. A: LE; B: contingent remainder; O: reversion in FSA The condition precedent is that B must survives A.

O conveys "to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B survives A, and if B does not survive A to C and his heirs."

The language if B survives A subjects B's remainder to the condition precedent of B surviving A, and the language and if B does not survive A subjects C's remainder to the opposite condition precedent. here we have alternative contingent remainders in B and C. If remainder in B vests, the remainder in C cannot, and vice versa. A: LE; B: alternative conditional remainder C: alternative conditional remainder; O: reversion

O conveys "to A for life, then to the heirs of B." B is alive.

The remainder is contingent because the heirs of B cannot be ascertained until B dies. You cannot have heirs until you dies. you can have expectant heirs. A: LE; B: contingent remainder in FSA; O: reversion

O conveys "to A for life, then to A's children and their heirs." A has one child, B.

The remainder is vested in B subject to open to let in later-born children. (vested remainder subject to open) B's exact share cannot be known until A dies. If a has no child at time of conveyance, the remainder is contingent because no taker is ascertained. A: life estate; B: vested remainder subject to open in FSA; A's unborn children have an executory interest

Remainders and Future Interests have... (Baker v. Weedon)

Value. A remainder is also alienable, eligible to be sold.

Interests created in a transferee, known as:

Vested remainder Contingent remainder Executory interest

Baker v. Weedon developed this doctrine of law

Waste law was developed to protect the future interest - to keep the life tenant from using the property in a way that diminished its value

Can you have defeasible life estates?

Yes - Ex. O --> A for life, provided that A does not build a rendering factor on the land

Alienability

You can sell it to someone else (King didn't like this because it could be sold to an enemy)

Present Estate

You have possession right now

Habendum Clause

clause that describes the interest that has been granted "to have and to hold"

O --> A and O --> A forever What transfers in common law?

created a life estate in common law (FS would have to say and his heirs)

T --> A for life

creates a LE with a reversion in T's estate

Why is it presumed that a FSSCS is better than a FSD?

reasons could be certainty of title, not automatic and sitting idle or because FSSCS is just better to have - you won't automatically lose it, the present interest in FSSCS has a greater interest. The FSSCS gives the present holder of the estate a greater interest which enhances alienability and the use of the property for its highest and best use.

Language that creates a fee simple determinable

so long as; while; or until (any language that is durational)

Language that creates a fee simple subject to condition subsequent

upon condition that; or provided that; or but if

Possibility of reverter

when the grantor transfers less than his entire interest in Blackacre