O conveys Blackacre to his son for life and upon his son's death, to his son's widow for her life and upon the death of the survivor of his son and his son's widow to such of their issue as shall then be living.
At the time of the conveyance, the son, and his wife, Alice, are all then living.
This is a practice problem verbatim from book. I am pretty confused with the wording. Can anyone tell me if this violates the RAP and what the interests all are?
Preferably, if they are done in sequential steps.
Thanks alot!
Future Estates (Rule Against Perpetutites) Question Forum
-
mbutterfly
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:17 pm
-
jlk86
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:09 pm
Re: Future Estates (Rule Against Perpetutites) Question
The son has a life estate, the son's widow has a contingent remainder for life, and their issue has a contingent remainder in fee simple.
The conveyance to the son is valid, because this is presumably O's only son and his interest will vest and become possessory immediately at O's death.
The conveyance to the widow is also valid, because at the moment of the son's death we will know for certain whether or not he was married. If he is married at the time of his death, the interest will vest immediately in his widow and become possessory. If he is not married at the time of his death, the interest will fail to vest. Either way, the interest will vest or fail to vest immediately upon the son's death (so the 21 years period does not even start to run because the son is the validating life).
The conveyance to their issue is not valid. You have to assume that at some point after the conveyance, a child is going to be born that will grow up to marry the son- i.e. Alice dies tomorrow and a baby is born in a year who marries the son at some point in the future. The son then dies, but his now-widow lives for another 22 years. His widow cannot be a validating life because she was not a life-in-being at the time of the conveyance. The only people who could function as validating lives are the son and Alice, and over 21 years have now passed since their deaths without the interest vesting or failing to vest in their issue.
The conveyance to the son is valid, because this is presumably O's only son and his interest will vest and become possessory immediately at O's death.
The conveyance to the widow is also valid, because at the moment of the son's death we will know for certain whether or not he was married. If he is married at the time of his death, the interest will vest immediately in his widow and become possessory. If he is not married at the time of his death, the interest will fail to vest. Either way, the interest will vest or fail to vest immediately upon the son's death (so the 21 years period does not even start to run because the son is the validating life).
The conveyance to their issue is not valid. You have to assume that at some point after the conveyance, a child is going to be born that will grow up to marry the son- i.e. Alice dies tomorrow and a baby is born in a year who marries the son at some point in the future. The son then dies, but his now-widow lives for another 22 years. His widow cannot be a validating life because she was not a life-in-being at the time of the conveyance. The only people who could function as validating lives are the son and Alice, and over 21 years have now passed since their deaths without the interest vesting or failing to vest in their issue.
-
GeePee
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm
Re: Future Estates (Rule Against Perpetutites) Question
I am not totally sure what the "survivor of his son and his son's widow" is supposed to mean, but I'm going to take it to mean whoever lives longer.
"Their issue" is taken to mean their children.
First, let's go through the interests as if there is no RAP violation.
Son has a life estate, widow has a contingent remainder in life estate (she gets it for life, contingent on the fact that she lives longer than her husband), and then, contingent remainder in fee simple subject to open for any possible children (there is no set number of them, and there is no guarantee that there will be any) who live past their parents, with reversion to O if there are no such children.
Then, find the measuring life.
After redacted because I misread the prompt. The other analysis here is good about why RAP is violated.
"Their issue" is taken to mean their children.
First, let's go through the interests as if there is no RAP violation.
Son has a life estate, widow has a contingent remainder in life estate (she gets it for life, contingent on the fact that she lives longer than her husband), and then, contingent remainder in fee simple subject to open for any possible children (there is no set number of them, and there is no guarantee that there will be any) who live past their parents, with reversion to O if there are no such children.
Then, find the measuring life.
After redacted because I misread the prompt. The other analysis here is good about why RAP is violated.
Last edited by GeePee on Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jlk86
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:09 pm
-
solidsnake
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am
Re: Future Estates (Rule Against Perpetutites) Question
O conveys Blackacre to his son for life and upon his son's death, to his son's widow for her life and upon the death of the survivor of his son and his son's widow to such of their issue as shall then be living.
At the time of the conveyance, the son, and his wife, Alice, are all then living.
Son has a life estate. Widow has contingent remainder because unascertained person. Issue's interest is invalid ab initio because fails RAP. (Alice dies post conveyance. Son remarries afterborn infant. Son and afterborn have child, X. Son dies. Widow takes. 22 years later widow dies. X interest vests too late.) Widow's interest therefore becomes contingent remainder in fee.
At the time of the conveyance, the son, and his wife, Alice, are all then living.
Son has a life estate. Widow has contingent remainder because unascertained person. Issue's interest is invalid ab initio because fails RAP. (Alice dies post conveyance. Son remarries afterborn infant. Son and afterborn have child, X. Son dies. Widow takes. 22 years later widow dies. X interest vests too late.) Widow's interest therefore becomes contingent remainder in fee.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
Merr
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:55 pm
Re: Future Estates (Rule Against Perpetutites) Question
Does the widow's interest become contingent remainder in fee, or does it revert back to O?solidsnake wrote:O conveys Blackacre to his son for life and upon his son's death, to his son's widow for her life and upon the death of the survivor of his son and his son's widow to such of their issue as shall then be living.
At the time of the conveyance, the son, and his wife, Alice, are all then living.
Son has a life estate. Widow has contingent remainder because unascertained person. Issue's interest is invalid ab initio because fails RAP. (Alice dies post conveyance. Son remarries afterborn infant. Son and afterborn have child, X. Son dies. Widow takes. 22 years later widow dies. X interest vests too late.) Widow's interest therefore becomes contingent remainder in fee.
-
highdraws
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:27 pm
Re: Future Estates (Rule Against Perpetutites) Question
This is an "Unborn Widow" Hypo. (i know, earlier posts hinted at this, but i didn't seem the exact label. if i missed it, apologies.)
to answer the last question:
the son's widow has a valid interest, but her interest is a contingent remainder in a life estate, not in fee simple. (key language: "for her life")
so at her death, the interest reverts back to O b/c O has a reversion.
reversions follow life estates.
possibility of reverter follows fee simple determinable.
correct me if i'm wrong.
to answer the last question:
the son's widow has a valid interest, but her interest is a contingent remainder in a life estate, not in fee simple. (key language: "for her life")
so at her death, the interest reverts back to O b/c O has a reversion.
reversions follow life estates.
possibility of reverter follows fee simple determinable.
correct me if i'm wrong.
