Estates in Land Hypo

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Estates in Land Hypo

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:19 pm

O conveys magentaacre to A and his heirs.

A conveys magentaacre to B until such time as B holds a church raffle there and then to C and his heirs.

B holds a church pull-tab event on magentaacre. The church enters the ticket stubs from the entry into a drawing for a door prize.

Who owns magentaacre before the pull-tab event and why? Who owns it after the pull-tab event and why?

C tells B to get the fuck out. B does not get the fuck out. C sues B in a modern rule jurisdiction to take possession of magentaacre, what result?

Would the answer be different in a strict common law jurisdiction?

mbutterfly
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:17 pm

Re: Estates in Land Hypo

Postby mbutterfly » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:36 pm

1. A has a fee simple absolute from O.
2. A conveys to B a fee simple subject to an executory interest (with a possibility of reverter for A)
C gets a shifting executory interest.
So before the "pull-tab event," B holds magentaacre in FSSEI (possibility of reverter for A) and C holds a shifting executory interest.

After the pull-tab event (which i am assuming is a raffle), the condition subsequent is met and the estate is terminated. The estate goes to C in fee simple absolute.

C has every right to tell B to get out.

I did not check for any rules against perpetuities but on first glance, i do not think it violates any. Not really sure though since my knowledge of RAP is pretty weak.

Let me know how this answer looks cause our class just learned estates in property this past week.

Anonymous Loser
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Estates in Land Hypo

Postby Anonymous Loser » Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:18 pm

mbutterfly wrote:
I did not check for any rules against perpetuities but on first glance, i do not think it violates any. Not really sure though since my knowledge of RAP is pretty weak.


The condition on the conveyance from A to B violates RAP.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Estates in Land Hypo

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:38 pm

Anonymous Loser wrote:
mbutterfly wrote:
I did not check for any rules against perpetuities but on first glance, i do not think it violates any. Not really sure though since my knowledge of RAP is pretty weak.


The condition on the conveyance from A to B violates RAP.


How so?

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Estates in Land Hypo

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:50 pm

mbutterfly wrote:1. A has a fee simple absolute from O.
2. A conveys to B a fee simple subject to an executory interest (with a possibility of reverter for A)
C gets a shifting executory interest.
So before the "pull-tab event," B holds magentaacre in FSSEI (possibility of reverter for A) and C holds a shifting executory interest.

After the pull-tab event (which i am assuming is a raffle), the condition subsequent is met and the estate is terminated. The estate goes to C in fee simple absolute.

C has every right to tell B to get out.

I did not check for any rules against perpetuities but on first glance, i do not think it violates any. Not really sure though since my knowledge of RAP is pretty weak.

Let me know how this answer looks cause our class just learned estates in property this past week.

I don't think the pull-tab event is a raffle. Pull tab events are not about buying tickets for which a prize is awarded. I don't think the door prize language changes that.

Anonymous Loser
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Estates in Land Hypo

Postby Anonymous Loser » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:07 pm

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
Anonymous Loser wrote:
mbutterfly wrote:
I did not check for any rules against perpetuities but on first glance, i do not think it violates any. Not really sure though since my knowledge of RAP is pretty weak.


The condition on the conveyance from A to B violates RAP.


How so?


O to A -> A to B -> Everyone alive at the time of the A to B conveyance dies -> 21 years pass -> Pull tab event -> to C 's heirs = interest vesting later than 21 years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests