modern law v common law of FI

Question 1

Contingent remainder, what happens if the prior estate expires before condition is met.

Answer 1

modern law if the condition isn’t met by the expiration of the prior state, but it’s possible that that condition, maybe not in the future or that person may be born in the future_. O springs in and has a reversion that acts as a placeholder._ And the person who had the contingent remainder gets a springing executor interest because they rip it away from oh once their condition is match or once they’re born 111:53 on 10 Nov 20

Question 2

Rule in Shelley’s Case

Answer 2

RULE: If a freehold estate is given to a person and in the same instrument, a

Remainder is given to the heirs, he takes the freehold estate AND

The remainder.

Question 3

Rule in Shelley’s Case: in Tranferee
Step by Step Analysis AT TIME OF CONVEYANCE

Answer 3

Label the conveyance

One instrument- must be created in one instrument

Creates a freehold estate in a transferee (a third party)

A remainder is created in that transferees ‘ heirs (X’s Heirs)

The contingent remainder in transferee’s heir’s becomes a vested remainder in transferee (X)

“then to M for life, then to M’s heirs”- this rule knocks out M’s heirs

Question 4

reform these

1. O conveys “to B for life, then to M for life, then to M’s heirs”
2. O conveys “to C for life, then to H for life, then to C’s heirs”
3. O conveys “to D for life, then to F’s heirs”

Answer 4

1. This becomes then to M as a fee simple. Increased marketability because M can sell it.
2. Look at his one, EVEN WITH AND INTERVENING ESTATE SHELLYS CASE RULES STILL APPLY:Answer is: to C for life, then to H for life, then to C’s and his heirs”
3. rule in shelly’s case does not apply

Question 5

Doctrine of Worthier Title- Transferor

Answer 5

HEIRS ARE unascertainable UNTIL death.

NO living person HAS heirs.

RULE: If a grantor creates a remainder or an executory interest in

His own heirs, the grantor retains a future interest in himself rather than creating a future

interest in those heirs. (O creates “in his own Heirs”)

Question 6

Doctrine of Worthier Title similar to shelly
Step by Step Analysis AT TIME OF CONVEYANCE

Answer 6

Label the conveyances

A conveyance (not a devise), creates a remainder or executory interest

“in Grantor’s Heirs)

Becomes a reversion to Grantor.

Question 7

Problems in Doctrine of Worthier Title, do any of these fit the mold

1. O conveys “to B for life, then to X’s heirs”
2. O conveys “to C for life, then X for life, then to O’s children”
3. O conveys “to D for life, them to X so long as it is used for a school, then to O’s heirs”

Answer 7

1. (Note the if X is dead the heirs has Indefeasibly vested remainder in FS.
2. C LE, X LE, O’s children- vested remainder subject to open
3. The first thing we do is label the conveniences D has a life estate X has an indie feasibly vested remainder subject to divestments

And O’s errs have an executive interest

D for life, them to X so long as it is used for a school. (we lose O’s heirs and O had a reversion.

Question 8

do shellys and worthier title apply in massachusetts

Answer 8

Rule in Shelley’s Case and Doctrine of Worthier Title Does not apply in Massachusetts.

Question 9

Destructibility of Contingent Remainders

Answer 9

Common Law A CONTINGENT REMAINDER is destroyed if it does not vest by the time the Prior estate ends.

If it does not vest at the close the prior estate,

EITHER O has a reversion OR the next Vested interest takes the estate. (makes marketability uncertain.

Question 10

Destructibility of Contingent Remainders common law example

Answer 10

To x for life then to C children, ( but C doesn’t have any children if X dies before C has children at common law C’s children get nothing forever.)

Question 11

Destructibility of Contingent Remainders MODERN LAW

Answer 11

Modern Law: The contingent remainder (held by whomever) turns into A springing executory interest held by O, until the condition is met (NOTE: that it is the holder of the original contingent remainder that springs in and takes)

Label conveyances

If a contingent remainder (it must vest B4 prior estate expires)

Common law: if it fails to vest to O THEN next vested estate takes.

Modern Law: if condition is not met, reversion to O until condition is met, springing executory interest in grantee.

Question 12

Destructibility of Contingent Remainders, which problems does it apply too

1. O conveys “to B for life, then to M’s children.” Assume M has no children.
2. O devises “to C for life, but if X marries Y, then to X”
3. O conveys “to D for life, then to D’s children.” Assume D has no children.

Answer 12

1. B has LE, Ms children has a contingent remainder in an unascertained person. O have reversion.

Under common law: if B dies before M has children then reversion in O has FSA

Modern law, if B dies before M has children, O would have a reversion executory interest and Ms child would have a spring executry interest

2. (this is a great question,)C has executory limitation, X Executory interest, reversion on O’s Heirs

I got his wrong the LE is subject to executory limitation (because it might not end naturally, if goes on the lower path of my chart) There is not contingent remainder.

Another way to rephase this: To C for life. So long as x isn’t married to Y (this is the same as above)

3. Under common law D LE, D children have a contingent remainder, O has a reversion

Common Law O has Reversion (there is not modern law here)

Question 14

How RAP operates, minority and modern law

Answer 14

How RAP operates, minority

Under common law, if a conveyance fails RAP, all offending conveyances are “Blue Lined” (removed) at the Time of the conveyance.

Modern Law: Majority

Cy Pres: Courts re-write the conveyance themselves so the future interest no longer violates RAP.

Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities: Valid if it meets RAP or vests within 90 years of creation.