Estates And Future Interests

Question 0

FSA

Answer 0

To A
To A and his heirs
Devisable
Alienable
Descendible 
No future interest

Question 1

What are the four present possessory estates?

Answer 1

fee simple absolute
Defesible fee’s (FSD, FSSCS, FSSEL)
Fee tail
Life estates

Question 2

FSD

Answer 2

O to A as long as, during, until
Grantor uses clear durational language
Automatic forfeiture once condition is broken
Accompanied by possibility of reverted for O the grantor

Question 3

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent

Answer 3

To A, but if x happens, grantor reserves right to re-enter and take
Carves out the right to re-enter
O gets right of re-entry

Question 4

Fee simple subject to executory limitation

Answer 4

To A, but if X event occurs, then to B
Automatic forfeiture upon event occurring
B has a shifting executory interest

Question 5

Life estate

Answer 5

To A for life
O has a reversion
A is the life tenant
Pur Autre vie = life of someone else

Question 6

Waste doctrine

Answer 6

Voluntary waste: over conduct that causes the drop in value. Willful acts of destruction; life tenant destroys something on pourpose to detroy
Permissive waste (neglect): when the land is allowed to fall into disrepair. The life tenant must maintain blackacre. Do the routine maintenance if you have a life estate. 
Ameliorative waste: life tenant must not engage in conduct that will enhance the premises value, unless all future interest holder consent: See that other case. Recognizes sentimental value. 
However, amelerotive waste law is evolving; see woodrick

Question 7

Future interests in O the grantor

Answer 7

Possibility of Reverter= only accompanies FSD
Right of entry/power of termination= only accompanies fee simple subject to condition subsequent
Reversion: Arises when O has something left over after conveying his estate.

Question 8

2 Future interests in a transferee

Answer 8

Remainders

Executory interests

Question 9

Vested remainders

Answer 9

Known taker and not subject to condition precedent

O to A for life, then to B

Question 10

Contingent remainder

Answer 10

Created in an unknown taker OR
Subject to a condition subsequent
O to A for life, then to B’s first child
O to A for life, then if B graduates from college, to B

Question 11

Executory interests

Answer 11

Benefitting from someone’s forfeiture

To A, but if B returns from Canada next year, to B

Question 12

Indefesibly vested remainders

Answer 12

Known and not subject to any conditions

O to A for life, then to B

Question 13

Vested remainder subject to complete divestment

Answer 13

Remainder subject to a condition subsequent
To A for life, then to B, but if B dies under 25, to C
C has executory interest
Not a condition precedent; no pre-req to be eligible
Remainder subject to a condition subsequent
Some eventuality, it
To A for life, then to B, but if B dies under 25, to C
B has a vested remainder subject to complete defesence
If b dies under 25, he’s done.

Question 14

Vested remainder subject to open

Answer 14

To A for life, then to B’s children
Class closes when A dies. 
Is this class open or closed?
Open if others can still join
Class closed, when no one else can join
Class closes when any member can demand possesion

Question 15

Springing executory interest

Answer 15

Springing Executory interest: Cuts short O the grantor
To A, if and when he marries
A has a springing executor interest
O has a Fee simple subject to A’s springing executory interest.

Question 16

Shifting executory interest

Answer 16

Shifting: always follows defesible fee, and cuts short someone other than O

To A, but if B returns from Canada next year, to B
•A has a Fee simple subject to B’s shifting executory interest
• B has a shifting executor interest
B has a shifting executor interest. B is capable of interrupting A.
B does not have a remainder because remainders never follow defisible fees.

Question 17

baker v. weedon

Answer 17

Cannot sell land under a LE without remainder persons in the deal (whole bundle of sticks), or you can only sell the life estate pur autre vie
If Life Tenant wants to sell but remainder persons don’t, court can order sale of part of the land, but they consider everyone’s interests (Baker v. Weedon)

Question 18

Life Estate Determinable

Answer 18

“O to A for life as long as A remains a widow”

Question 19

white v. brown

Answer 19

ambiguous conveyance because of the limiting language tacked on; Conveyance was: “O wishes A to have her home to live in and not to be sold.” Looks like a life estate. But, presumption is that a will conveys all of the testator’s interest unless context demonstrates a contrary intention (grantor’s intent is important). So majority says this would be a FSA with a restraint on alienation; disabling restraint words are void and stricken. Dissent read this to be a life estate rather than an attempt at restricting alienability.

Question 20

Rule against restraints on alienability

Answer 20

Court doesn’t like restraints on alienability because they hinder marketability; LE restraints don’t hinder marketability b/c can’t transfer more than you have right to
Any absolute restraint is void; forfeiture restraints are allowed for LE’s; 3 kinds of voidable restraints:
Disabiling: prevents grantee from transferring; if he transfers its like it never happened, can’t do it
Forfeiture: prevents grantee from attempting to transfer; once he attempts he forfeits
Promissory: grantee promises not to transfer, enforceable as a contract; grantee can transfer and does lose her interest, but grantor has contract c/a

Question 21

term of years- kind of like a lease

Answer 21

“O to A for X# of years”
Only lasts for X# of years;
O has seisen, so O has a FS subject to A’s leasehold
Piggyback rule: Leaseholds are piggybacked on other interest and operate as executory limitations.

Question 22

marenholz v. county board school of school trustees

Answer 22

ambiguous conveyance that is either a FSD or a FSCS: “this land to be used for school purposes only; otherwise to revert to Grantors herein.” Classification determines if there was a possibility of reverter or right of entry, which in turn determines who gets the property. School Board says it’s a FSCS, the right of entry was never exercised, so interest was never conveyed because grantor didn’t have an interest to convey. Court held the word “only” in the granting clause indicated a FSD. So, H inherited the reverter, because it wasn’t alienable or devisable but was inheritable, so he was able to convey it to the M’s once the condition was breached. The case was remanded to determine if the condition was actually breached.

Question 23

mountain brow lodge v. toscano

Answer 23

Court held a restraint on alienation was severable from the restriction on use and didn’t render the use restriction invalid. Court says restrictions on use are okay, restrictions on alienation are not okay. Occupancy restrictions are typically struck if they restrict to too small of a group, except if they are to a non-profit because courts like to encourage gifts. In this case the court looked to the grantor’s intent to decide he didn’t want the lodge to have a FSA, but instead intended to include a use restriction.

Question 24

rule of involuntary breach

Answer 24

When government condemnation causes breach in condition (from note cases): Rule: most courts say involuntary breach doesn’t trigger reversion unless condition was going to be breached anyway (anticipatory breach) This sometimes leads to the courts needing to value each respective interest and divide the proceeds of the ‘just compensation’ for the taking proportionately (problematic) Restatement rule: for power of termination (aka right of entry) to have value the breach must be imminent (this rule only applies when a paramount authority steps in to take the land and oust the possessor) Rule: when the condemnor owns the present possessory interest the action of condemnation makes the breach imminent. (can’t oust yourself)

Question 25

Rule of destructibility

Answer 25

Contingent remainder is destroyed unless it vests at or before termination of the preceding estate; if it destructs, the next vested estate comes into possession (usually the reversion). “O to A for life, then to B if B reaches 35,” if B isn’t 35 when A dies, B’s interest is lost, reverts to O Destructibility doctrine didn’t apply to XIs which were indestructible, so the courts held that if it was ambiguous you must construe a limitation as creating a contingent remainder if possible (so it could be destroyed)

Question 26

Doctrine of worthier titles

Answer 26

If grantor, through inter vivos conveyance, created a LE in the grantee, and a future interest in the grantor’s heirs, CL just gave the interest to O instead of his heirs. It doesn’t void the interest in the grantor’s heirs, reclassifies it Examples: “O to A for life, then to O’s heirs”—read to give O a reversion “O to A for life, then to B, but if B uses the land for a church, then to O’s heirs”—executory interest in O’s heirs read as O’s reversion This is a rule of construction, so strong enough evidence of the grantor’s intent to the contrary would overcome the doctrine. Most states have abolished this rule

Question 27

rule in shellys case

Answer 27

If one instrument creates a LE in A and purports to create a remainder in the heirs of A, the future interest becomes a remainder in FS in A. This is a rule of law, so it is intent-overriding This rule has been abolished in most jurisdictions

Question 28

trusts

Answer 28

Separation of “legal” and “equitable” title Trustee holds legal title to the trust property and manages that property for the benefit of the beneficiaries, who have the right of beneficial enjoyment of the property Trustee is subject to orders of equity court which enforce trustee’s duties to beneficiaries, who are said to hold equitable interests Trustee must act for the exclusive benefit of the beneficiaries, he may not act for his personal benefit. Perpetual trust: one that can continue to control the disposition of wealth forever into the future (literally and virtually)