Rule Against Perpetuities Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
jdubb990
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:16 am

Rule Against Perpetuities Question

Postby jdubb990 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:03 pm

Han Solo, owner of Blueacre in fee simple absolute, conveys it "to Pushaw for life, then to Chambers if he attains the age of 50."

Can I cross out the condition that "if he attains the age of 50."? Or do I have to cross out the entire clause "then to Chambers if he attains the age of 50."?

User avatar
Merr
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: Rule Against Perpetuities Question

Postby Merr » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:26 pm

betasteve wrote:
jdubb990 wrote:Han Solo, owner of Blueacre in fee simple absolute, conveys it "to Pushaw for life, then to Chambers if he attains the age of 50."

Can I cross out the condition that "if he attains the age of 50."? Or do I have to cross out the entire clause "then to Chambers if he attains the age of 50."?

I don't think this is a RAP issue. Chambers is the measuring life. Now if you are concerned about the situation if Pushaw dies before Chambers is 50 - we didn't deeply cover that in class, but my memory is that a court may create an estate where the corpus is allowed to be used by Han Solo and heirs (since he had the "reversion" on the life estate) for the benefit of Chambers. We skipped Rule in Shelly's case, and this may fall under that doctrine, but I wouldn't have a clue if it did or did not.


Out of curiosity if Pushaw did die before Chambers reached 50 would the property revert leaving Chambers with a springing executory interest and Han Solo/Han Solo's heirs with a fee simple subject to complete divestment?

User avatar
Merr
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: Rule Against Perpetuities Question

Postby Merr » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:02 pm

betasteve wrote:
Like I said, not completely sure. That's probably the best way to describe it. I think the point is that it would not be read as grantor's intent to destroy Chambers' contingent remainder on a death of Pushaw before C's remainder vested. It would either be a trust or something held by HS and heirs until C's interest vested or terminated. Or, it would be like you said, HS and heirs have fee simple subject to executory limitation, and Chambers would have an executory interest in an FSA. (The executory interest would be shifting, not springing, though)


Thank you for your insight. Btw why is that? I thought springing interests divested grantors and shifting interests divested non-grantors.

User avatar
jdubb990
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:16 am

Re: Rule Against Perpetuities Question

Postby jdubb990 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:08 pm

Apparently this is not a RAP issue. Chambers is the measuring life of what he receives.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: black lab, EzraFitz and 6 guests