So one way of distinguishing between vested and contingent remainders is whether the remainder is subject to a condition precedent or condition subsequent.
If subject to a condition subsequent, it is a vested remainder subject to total defeasance (because non-occurrence of the condition can defease the vested remainder).
(Here is where I'm confused, so I'm just going to spell out my understanding--please correct me if this is wrong)
Even though it can be totally defeased, the original grantor does not retain a reversion because vested remainders accelerate into possession as quickly as possible; thus, even if the condition is not satisfied, the vested remainderman will still get possession as soon as the previous possessory estate ends. So effectively, acceleration nulls the condition subsequent, in which case the reaminderman effectively has an indefeasibly vested remainder.
Correct? Or not?
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], lawdude321 and 7 guests