Property: Future Interests Question -- HALP! Forum

[quiver]

The answer is anything but clear. This grant lends itself to two reasonable interpretations. One is that A's give is subject to TWO executory limitations, BOTH of which must be satisfied before he's divested (the kids being born, and B murdering a property exam). But a court could just as easily say that a grant "To A, but if (x) then to (y)" divests A as soon as (x) happens. This is the standard operation of executory interests. If the gift to (y) is subject to its own condition precedent, that inherently creates a reversion in O.

The point is, if you took this problem and said "Well, it's not a life estate so O can't have a reversion" or "future interests in unborn people must be contingent remainders" or "O purportly granted fee simple so he can't have a future interest" you probably wouldn't get the most points possible. There's a reason that hornbooks say no new type of future interest can be created - lots of future interests don't fit easily into the common rules.

Agreed.

[Cupidity]

What (if any) future interest does O have in the following example?

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Suppose that B wins the Book Award and that B has no children.

HALP! Kthx.

A has a vested interest in Fee Simple Subject to complete divestment. B has a springing executory interest.

[03121202698008]

What (if any) future interest does O have in the following example?

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Suppose that B wins the Book Award and that B has no children.

HALP! Kthx.

A has a vested interest in Fee Simple Subject to complete divestment. B has a springing executory interest.

Have you taken property? There is no such thing as a Fee Simple Subject to complete divestment. Nor is the EI springing from O.