RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
mbutterfly
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:17 pm

RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby mbutterfly » Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:17 pm

Taken verbatim from exam (order, punctuation, and placement of sentences):

"D to A for life, then to B and his heirs, but if B does not survive A, then to C and his heirs."

D has conveyed to A in FSA.

1. What kind of interest does B have?

2. What kind of interest does C have?



I originally said that both B & C have contingent remainders (with the condition precedent being whether B survives A). But also, the 2nd line "D has conveyed to A in FSA" throws in a curveball. Does it make the grant null & void or does it happen AFTER the initial grant? The word "coveyED" vs. "conveyS" have anything to do with it?

Thanks for any guidance.

tamlyric
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby tamlyric » Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:25 pm

mbutterfly wrote:Taken verbatim from exam (order, punctuation, and placement of sentences):

"D to A for life, then to B and his heirs, but if B does not survive A, then to C and his heirs."

D has conveyed to A in FSA.

1. What kind of interest does B have?

2. What kind of interest does C have?



I originally said that both B & C have contingent remainders (with the condition precedent being whether B survives A). But also, the 2nd line "D has conveyed to A in FSA" throws in a curveball. Does it make the grant null & void or does it happen AFTER the initial grant? The word "coveyED" vs. "conveyS" have anything to do with it?

Thanks for any guidance.


Welp. Here's a quick analysis for whatever it's worth.

B has a vested remainder in FSA subject to divestment.

C has a [I need to do some practice problems.]
Last edited by tamlyric on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby keg411 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:31 pm

It sounds like it just means D has a FSA when he writes the conveyance and the question is poorly written. If that's the case:

B has a vested remainder subject to divestment (based on comma placement)
C has shifting executory interest (if B dies before A, C will "cut off" B's interest)

User avatar
joobacca
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:49 am

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby joobacca » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:25 pm

i'm pretty sure B has vested remainder subject to total divestment
as for C, i'm going with contingent remainder. a shifting exec interest cuts short an possessory interest (NOT SURE ABOUT THIS AT ALL). i think it's a contingent remainder because it's subject to a condition precedent.
so A dies. either B survives A or not. so B either gets the present possessory estate (if that's what it's called) or B doesn't. C never "cuts short" B's possessory interest. C doesn't take shit from B becasue if C gets anything it's becasue B never had shit.

as for that second line, i have no clue wtf it's supposed to mean.

i haven't taken a property in a year so yea...

EDIT: i just looked up shifting exec interest. i think i have the definition wrong. it just says something about cutting the preceding interest, and nothing about the preceding interest having to be possessory. in conclusion, i have no idea.

User avatar
geekrocker37
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby geekrocker37 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:38 pm

Found this example on a Sparknotes Property Outline.
http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal ... ction3.php

Vested remainder subject to defeasance/divestment: The holder of the remainder is ascertainable, but the occurrence of a specified condition could extinguish the remainder.

*

Example: Olivia conveys Greenacre “To Arnold for life, then to Ben and his heirs; but if Ben dies before Arnold, then to Claire and her heirs.” Arnold has a life estate; Ben has a vested remainder subject to divestment because the occurrence of his death before the end of Arnold’s life estate extinguishes Ben’s remainder.

I'm guessing this would mean Claire, or C in your problem has a shifting exec interest.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby GMVarun » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:47 pm

A has a present possessary interest in a life estate.
B has a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
C has an shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute.

C's interest not contingent, because it cannot become possessory at the natural end of B's estate (in fact, B's estate cannot have a natural termination, like a term of years, fee tail, or life estate). It must necessarily divest B's interest.

User avatar
doinmybest
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby doinmybest » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:15 pm

GMVarun wrote:A has a present possessary interest in a life estate.
B has a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
C has an shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute.

C's interest not contingent, because it cannot become possessory at the natural end of B's estate (in fact, B's estate cannot have a natural termination, like a term of years, fee tail, or life estate). It must necessarily divest B's interest.



Mega-Vron you post on here?? Nice.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby TCScrutinizer » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:17 pm

mbutterfly wrote:Taken verbatim from exam (order, punctuation, and placement of sentences):

"D to A for life, then to B and his heirs, but if B does not survive A, then to C and his heirs."

D has conveyed to A in FSA.

1. What kind of interest does B have?

2. What kind of interest does C have?

I originally said that both B & C have contingent remainders (with the condition precedent being whether B survives A). But also, the 2nd line "D has conveyed to A in FSA" throws in a curveball. Does it make the grant null & void or does it happen AFTER the initial grant? The word "coveyED" vs. "conveyS" have anything to do with it?

Thanks for any guidance.


I think the "D has conveyed to A in FSA" is probably a clumsy attempt to establish that D has actually transferred the totality of his interest in the property, which could have as easily been communicated with, "D dies." Otherwise the problem doesn't make sense.

A has a life estate, B has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to complete divestment (alternatively referred to as fee simple subject to executory limitation), and C has a shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute.

The RAP applies to the shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute conveyed to C. The conveyance is, however, a good one, because the interest must necessarily vest or fail to vest within the life of either A or B. Should A die while B still lives, then the present possessory interest passes to B, and C's interest is extinguished; should B predecease A, C's interest becomes vested at the time that B dies.

User avatar
quiver
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby quiver » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:53 am

My opinion, for what it's worth:

The whole "D has conveyed to A in FSA" thing is weird. I'm pretty sure if writing is ambiguous then the conveyance is interpreted as giving the longest estate the grantor has (eg: D to A would be a FS in this scenario), but the writing is not ambiguous here, there are conflicting terms. I'll assume the prof isn't trying to trick you or something and treat this statement the same way as everyone else.

B has a vested remainder in FSA subject to complete/total divestment (that seems pretty settled)
C has a contingent remainder in FSA. The estate prior to C will be A (if C takes at all), this is important. It does not cut A's estate short because obviously A's life estate will end upon her death. C's interest will not cut B's estate short either because the only way C can take possession is if B does not survive A. Because C's estate "waits patiently" for the end of A's estate it is a remainder and not an executory limitation. Obviously it will be a contingent remainder because the condition precedent is B dying before A.

RAP is not violated here. A is the measuring life; we'll know who takes possession as soon as A dies: if B is alive, then B, if not, then C.

Hope this helps

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby keg411 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:18 am

C would "cut off" B's interest, not A's interest. Hence why springing EL and not CR.
CR's follow CR's, EL's follow VR's subject to divestment.

Yay comma placement. Also I actually like Future Interests. Yes, I know I have problems :lol:.

User avatar
quiver
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby quiver » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:51 am

keg411 wrote:C would "cut off" B's interest, not A's interest. Hence why springing EL and not CR.
CR's follow CR's, EL's follow VR's subject to divestment.


hmm yeah that's true. Since B's interest is in FSA it would have to be cut short in order for B to never gain possession (by the very definition of divestment). Touche keg411 (and others who said that) :oops: . Although if it's cutting off B's interest, it would be shifting, not springing. That's what I get for not thinking it through...good thing exams are like 6 weeks away.

tamlyric
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby tamlyric » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:49 am

I propose we do a new future interests/estates problem each day until finals.

O devises Blackacre to A for 10 years, then to B for life, then to C, but if C sells liquor, then to B's children.

Go!

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby keg411 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:32 am

quiver wrote:
keg411 wrote:C would "cut off" B's interest, not A's interest. Hence why springing EL and not CR.
CR's follow CR's, EL's follow VR's subject to divestment.


hmm yeah that's true. Since B's interest is in FSA it would have to be cut short in order for B to never gain possession (by the very definition of divestment). Touche keg411 (and others who said that) :oops: . Although if it's cutting off B's interest, it would be shifting, not springing. That's what I get for not thinking it through...good thing exams are like 6 weeks away.


I think I said shifting in my first post on this :lol:.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby TCScrutinizer » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:32 am

tamlyric wrote:I propose we do a new future interests/estates problem each day until finals.

O devises Blackacre to A for 10 years, then to B for life, then to C, but if C sells liquor, then to B's children.

Go!


A possesses a term of years, B has a vested remainder in life estate, C has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to complete divestment, and B's children have a shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute.

I think that the conveyance doesn't violate the RAP because the contingent interest -- in B's children, must vest or fail to vest within the life of C, because the condition subsequent applies only to C and not to the property.

User avatar
Mattalones
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:18 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby Mattalones » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:54 am

tamlyric wrote:I propose we do a new future interests/estates problem each day until finals.

O devises Blackacre to A for 10 years, then to B for life, then to C, but if C sells liquor, then to B's children.

Go!

O: Possibility of reversion during A's term of years (A could die in less than 10 years)
A: Term of years (present possessory)
B: Life estate (vested in interest)
C: Contingent remainder fee simple subject to exectory limitation (vested in interest)
B's Children: Executory interest in FSA (contingent)

Assuming B has kids, there is no RAP problem if A, B, & C are alive at execution of O's will b/c C will sell liquor in his life if he sells liquor at all. Also, B's children aren't subject to open b/c Blackacre can't vest in them until after B dies and can't have more kids by then.

The condition "if C sells liquor" might have a "dead hand" issue if Blackacre is a restaurant or something that could naturally sell liquor. If so, we can cross it out, leaving "O devises Blackacre to A for 10 years, then to B for life, then to C,but if C sells liquor, then to B's children."

This would leave

O: Possibility of reversion during A's term of years (A could die in less than 10 years)
A: Term of years (present possessory)
B: Life estate (vested in interest)
C: Remainder in FSA (vested in interest)
B's Children: N/A

8)

User avatar
Mattalones
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:18 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby Mattalones » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:16 am

Side note: I followed the SparkNotes link someone posted, and I think it has something totally wrong on RAP. Everything in my class about the traditional RAP has been that an instrument is no good unless it must vest in the RAP period. So, it is bad if there is any circumstance under which it won't vest. But, the SparkNotes thing has the logic totally different
SparkNotes wrote:If the interest could vest during any of their lifetimes, it is valid under the RAP.
:?

Anyway ... Next:
O grants X to A for life, then to B for 110 weeks so long as he remain completely sober, then to B's kids, and then to B's grandkids when they reach the age of 18.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby GMVarun » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:18 pm

doinmybest wrote: Mega-Vron you post on here?? Nice.


What's up dude -- yeah I get bored and look on here

Mattalones wrote:O grants X to A for life, then to B for 110 weeks so long as he remain completely sober, then to B's kids, and then to B's grandkids when they reach the age of 18.


A has a present interest in a life estate.
B has a vested remainder in term of years subject to an executory limitation.
B's kids have a shifting executory interest in fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
B's grandkids have a shifting executory interest in fee simple. I am assuming that no grandkids are born, or if born, less than 18. If there is one grandkid born, then B's kids (I guess?) have no interest, and that kid has an shifting executory interest subject to an executory limitation (that is other grandkids reaching 18 years of age).

I am not sure what happens if B dies before 110 weeks, while remaining completely sober. Does O possess this reversion until the end of the 110 weeks or does this go to B's heirs?

RAP:
Assuming B is alive, then B's kids is an open class, as is B's grandkids. If right now B has no kids, and no grandkids, there's a RAP problem. B can be the measuring life. At his death, his kids class will close, and so there's no RAP problem. However, 5 years after B's death, B's kid could have a child, whose interest would vest 23 years after the death of B.

Therefore, the last clause will be struck out. A will have a present interest in a life estate. B has a vested remainder in term of years subject to an executory limitation. B's kids will have a shifting executory interest in fee simple.

O or B's heirs will possess a reversion (I think) if B dies before 110 weeks, as is sober til his death.

User avatar
TCScrutinizer
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby TCScrutinizer » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:49 pm

Mattalones wrote:Side note: I followed the SparkNotes link someone posted, and I think it has something totally wrong on RAP. Everything in my class about the traditional RAP has been that an instrument is no good unless it must vest in the RAP period. So, it is bad if there is any circumstance under which it won't vest. But, the SparkNotes thing has the logic totally different
SparkNotes wrote:If the interest could vest during any of their lifetimes, it is valid under the RAP.
:?

Anyway ... Next:
O grants X to A for life, then to B for 110 weeks so long as he remain completely sober, then to B's kids, and then to B's grandkids when they reach the age of 18.


Yeah, sparknotes is totally wrong about that. If it was that the interest could vest, the RAP would be completely pointless and nonsensical. And that would be the least of our legal headaches.

To those who are saying that the first conveyance is that of a present possessory interest, that is not necessarily so -- unless the conveyance states it, or O dies -- since typically these are referring to testamentary provisions. Just trying to be technically precise, as my property professor urged.

User avatar
Mattalones
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:18 pm

Re: RAP Problem to Work Brain Cells

Postby Mattalones » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:22 pm

Me wrote:O grants X to A for life, then to B for 110 weeks so long as he remain completely sober, then to B's kids, and then to B's grandkids when they reach the age of 18.

Note: B's kids = B', and B's grandkids = B'' ... simpler

MY ATTEMPT (explanation below)
O: Contingent reversionary interest during B's term of years (should B die or drink) & during possession by B' before B'' are 18
A: Vested life estate
B: Vested remainder in a determinable term of years
B': Remainder in fee simple subject to complete defeasance
B'': Conditional remainder in FSA

EXPLANATION
O: Obvious
A: Obvious
B: [Vested remainder = obvious] in a [determinable because the property reverts to O upon condition] [term of years = Obvious]
B': [This is odd because it is like a term of years until B'' are born & turn 18, which is like a variable term of years ... but there is no category for this]
B'': [This is because the interest is in FSA but only if B'' lives to 18 and interest is still valid]

RAP ISSUES
This is easy to kill.

If A and B are alive at the execution of the instrument, then it depends if A predeceases B or visa-vera
- A predeceases B: B is the measuring life & the instrument is bad b/c B'' won't close in time if B' doesn't die w/in 21yrs
- B predeceases A: A is the measuring life & the instrument is bad b/c B'' can remain subject to open for 21yrs if any B' lives

If A, B, & B' are alive, then its bad if A dies, each B' alive at the execution of the instrument dies, then B conceives another B', and then B dies b/c B" may be subject to open for 21 yrs.
- If that is confusing, I just mean that it might vest remotely if A and all of B's kids die soon after O's will transfers X to A; B could have another kid that wasn't alive at the execution of O's will and then B could die soon after. This would mean all of the lives in being would be dead and the 21 year clock would start ticking. Also, since one of B's kids would still be alive, the class of B's grandkids would still be subject to open and this could continue for more than two years. All that would require is for one of B's kids to continue living for 21 years or more after A dies, his siblings that were alive at the time of the will die, and after his parent, B, dies.

If A, B, B' & B" are alive, just let all the B" die and repeat the process just before this scenario and you'll have the same problem.

So, it's bad in any case, leaving:
O grants X to A for life, then to B for 110 weeks so long as he remain completely sober, then to B's kids, and then to B's grandkids when they reach the age of 18.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alexMar and 9 guests