CH. 5

Question 1

Does a devise, “to Adam for life, then to Adam’s closest relatives,” trigger the Rule in Shelley’s Case, if the jurisdiction recognizes the doctrine?

Answer 1

The Rule in Shelley’s Case states that if O conveys or T devises, “to A for life, then to A’s heirs,” A’s heirs take nothing; rather, A takes a remainder. The Rule in Shelley’s Case has been abrogated in most jurisdictions.

Question 2

Assuming the Rule in Shelley’s Case does apply, and alternatively does not apply, what are the respective consequences?

Answer 2

If the rule applies, A’s heirs (closest family members) take nothing and A takes a remainder; if the remainder is not contingent, A takes a vested remainder. Then, under the doctrine of merger, because A owns a life estate and a vested remainder, A owns a fee simple. On the other hand, if the rule is not applicable, A owns a life estate and the heirs own a contingent remainder with a reversion in testator’s heirs.