Property
Class Notes
19. “Ochs to Anna for life, then
to the first daughter of Anna who reaches 21 and her heirs. At the time of the deed, Anna has two
daughters, Bette, who is 20; and Clara, who is 18.”
a. Classify the interests: Anna
has a life estate, the first daughter of Anna who reaches 21 has a contingent
remainder in fee simple absolute, and Ochs has a reversion in fee simple
absolute.
1. If Anna dies before any
daughter reaches 21, then Ochs regains possession in fee simple determinable. The first daughter who reaches 21 will have an
executory interest in fee simple absolute.
2. If a daughter reaches 21
before Anna dies, that daughter will have a vested remainder in fee simple
absolute.
b. Apply the Rules: I think
it’s okay because the “worst” that could happen for Rule Against Perpetuities
purposes is that both daughters could die and then Anna could have another
daughter and die as soon as she is born.
Then it would be precisely 21 years before we would know for sure
whether the contingent remainder would vest or fail.
20. “Ochs to Alicia for life,
then to Bonnie and her heirs, but if Bonnie does not survive Alicia, then to
Claire and her heirs. An extra task:
After you have identified the interests created by this document, draft two
conveyances with the identical condition but using different future interests.”
a. Classify the interests:
Alicia has a life estate, Bonnie has a vested remainder subject to divestment
in fee simple absolute, Claire has a shifting executory interest in fee simple
absolute. Ochs has nothing.
b. Apply the Rules: No problem
here.
c. Extra task: [To show that
there’s no substantive difference between these things!]
1. “To Alicia for life, then to
Bonnie and her heirs if Bonnie survives Alicia, but if Bonnie does not survive
Alicia, then to Claire and her heirs.”
Bonnie and Claire have alternative contingent remainders in this case.
2. “To Alicia for life, then to
Claire and her heirs, but if Bonnie survives Alicia, then to Bonnie and her
heirs.” Claire has a vested remainder
subject to an executory limitation and Bonnie has an executory interest. Does this make sense?
21. “Oona to Alexia for life,
then to her children and their heirs.
Alexia wants to tear down the sing-family residence that is one the
deeded land and build a multi-unit condominium for well-to-do law students. Her son opposes her plan and will try to stop
her.”
a. Classify the interests:
Alexia has a life estate and her children have a vested remainder subject to
open in fee simple absolute.
b. Apply the Rules: No
problems.
c. The son could try to sue
Alexia for waste. [Recall Woodrick v. Wood,
where the
22. “Would your answer be
different in the previous problem if the deed said, ‘to Alexia for life, then
to her heirs and their heirs’?” This
would seem to cause the Rule in Shelley’s Case to kick in. But first [even if the Rule in Shelley’s Case
doesn’t apply], we could note that the son doesn’t have a case because Alexia’s
heirs are unascertained. But this
probably would just be converted to a gift “to Alexia and her heirs” and Alexia
would have a fee simple absolute. What
we would do is appoint a guardian to represent the interests of the heirs.
a. Classify the interests: Alexia
has a life estate. Alexia’s heirs have a
contingent remainder in fee simple absolute.
b. Apply the Rules: The Rule in
Shelley’s Case applies.
c. Reclassify the interests:
Alexia has a fee simple absolute.
23. “Onassis by deed, ‘to
a. Classify the interests:
b. Apply the Rules: The Doctrine
of Worthier Title kicks in! Here we have
a purported future interest in “the heirs of Onassis”. But this simply becomes a reversion in fee
simple absolute in Onassis.
c. Reclassify the interests:
24. “O’Brien to Avia for life,
then to the children of Avia who reach 30 and their heirs. Avia has one child at the effective date of
this instrument. Then, two years later,
she has a second child, who dies at the age of six. Then, four years after the death of the
second child, she has a third child. The
first and third children reach the age of 30.”
a. Classify the interests: Avia
has a life estate, the children of Avia who reach the age of 30 have a contingent
remainder in fee simple absolute, and O’Brien has a reversion in fee simple
absolute.
b. Apply the Rules: Here’s a
bad Rule Against Perpetuities problem!
Say Avia dies in childbirth of an afterborn child. It will be more than 21 years before we know
whether that child reaches the age of 30.
c. Reclassify the interests
(under the common law): Avia has a life estate and O’Brien has a reversion in fee
simple absolute.
d. Under
e. Under
25. “O’Brien, in his will, ‘to
Atticus for life, then to the children of Atticus who have reached the age of
30 by the time of Atticus’s death and their heirs.’”
a. Classify the interests: Atticus
has a life estate. The children of
Atticus who have reached the age of 30 by the time of Atticus’s death have a contingent
remainder in fee simple absolute. If a
child turns 30 while Atticus is still alive, their interest becomes a vested
remainder subject to open in fee simple absolute. O’Brien has a reversion in fee simple
absolute.
b. Apply the Rules: No problems
here. Atticus is a life in being, and
his children will be ascertained at the time of his death. [The remainder will vest or fail as soon as
Atticus dies! “By the time of Atticus’s
death” are the magic words here.]
26. “O’Brien, by deed, ‘to
Abigail for life, then to the grandchildren of Abigail who reach the age of 21
and their heirs.’”
a. Classify the interests: Abigail
has a life estate. The grandchildren of
Abigail purportedly have a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. O’Brien has a reversion in fee simple
absolute. [Don’t forget the reversion!!!]
b. Apply the Rules: There is a Rule Against Perpetuities problem. There can be afterborn children who
subsequently have afterborn grandchildren, and we’ve seen the problem with this
before.
c. Reclassify the interests:
Abigail still has a life estate. O’Brien
has a reversion in fee simple absolute.
d. Under
e. Under
27. “O’Neal to Alfalfa for life,
then to Braswell and his heirs if Braswell survives Alfalfa. Subsequently,
Braswell loses all of his property to Craig in a poker game.”
a. Classify the interests: Alfalfa
has a life estate. Braswell has a contingent
remainder in fee simple absolute. O’Neal
has a reversion in fee simple absolute.
After Braswell loses his property to Craig [assuming poker debts are
enforceable at law], Craig has a contingent remainder pur autre vie in fee simple absolute (Braswell still has to survive
Alfalfa in order for Craig’s interest to become possessory). If Braswell doesn’t survive Alfalfa, then Craig’s
remainder becomes worthless.
b. Apply the Rules: No problem!
28. “Odell to Ari for life. Ari
sells all of his property to Colleen.”
a. Classify the interests: Ari has
a life estate. Odell has a reversion in fee
simple absolute. Upon the sale of Ari’s property,
Colleen has a life estate pur autre vie (measured
by the life of Ari).