Property Questions - Rule Against Perpetuities

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
DaydreamBeliever
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm

Property Questions - Rule Against Perpetuities

Postby DaydreamBeliever » Thu May 05, 2011 7:52 pm

I'm having problems with these last two questions.


I am supposed to be able to specifically state why this violates the rap... and the other ones don't

I'm totally lost.... :shock:

Question 9 of 11: In which of the following cases is the Rule Against Perpetuities violated?
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B if B attains the age of 30. B is now 2 years old.
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to A's children for their lives, then to B if is then alive, and if B is not then alive, to B's heirs.
O, a teacher of property law, declares that she holds in trust $1000 "for all members of my present property class who are admitted to the bar."
O, a teacher of property law, declares that she holds in trust $1000 "for the first child of A who is admitted to the bar."

Question 10 of 11: T devises property to A for life, and on A's death to A's children for their lives, and upon the death of A and A's children, to the person or persons indicated in the examples below. A and B survive T. Which of the examples violates the Rule Against Perpetuities?
B if A dies childless
B's children
B's children then living


And for this one, I'm supposed to state why this one DOESNT violate the rap and the others do.. but they are all grandchildren....


Question 11 of 11: T devises property to A for life, and on A's death to A's children for their lives, and upon the death of A and A's children, to the person or persons indicated in the examples below. A and B survive T. Which of the examples DOES NOT violate the Rule Against Perpetuities?
B if A has no grandchildren then living
A's grandchildren
T's grandchildren


HELP!

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Property Questions - Rule Against Perpetuities

Postby Renzo » Thu May 05, 2011 9:13 pm

I can explain the first two, but number three seems like a trick...

Try to dream up any crazy scenario that would cause it to violate the RAP, and if you can, it fails.

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Question 9 of 11: In which of the following cases is the Rule Against Perpetuities violated?
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B if B attains the age of 30. B is now 2 years old.
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to A's children for their lives, then to B if is then alive, and if B is not then alive, to B's heirs.
O, a teacher of property law, declares that she holds in trust $1000 "for all members of my present property class who are admitted to the bar."
O, a teacher of property law, declares that she holds in trust $1000 "for the first child of A who is admitted to the bar."

This one fails because A could have a child after the conveyance (thus the child would not be a life in being), and 21 years after A's death, that kid could b in law school but not yet passed the bar. Thus, the remainder will not have either vested or failed within the RAP. Compare this to the other teacher example, where all of the students are lives in being at the time, because fetuses aren't allowed to enroll.


DaydreamBeliever wrote:Question 10 of 11: T devises property to A for life, and on A's death to A's children for their lives, and upon the death of A and A's children, to the person or persons indicated in the examples below. A and B survive T. Which of the examples violates the Rule Against Perpetuities?
B if A dies childless
B's children
B's children then living

one day after the conveyance T dies. Two days later, A has her first child. Day three, A and B die. Now, the life estate passes to child-of-A, and all lives in being at the time of the execution have ended. 21 years later, child-of-A is still alive, so we don't yet know which of B's children will remain alive when A finally croaks, so the remainder hasn't vested or failed within the RAP.

If this had just gone to "B's children" it would have vested subject to open immediately--but that still counts as vested, so it passes the RAP

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Question 11 of 11: T devises property to A for life, and on A's death to A's children for their lives, and upon the death of A and A's children, to the person or persons indicated in the examples below. A and B survive T. Which of the examples DOES NOT violate the Rule Against Perpetuities?
B if A has no grandchildren then living
A's grandchildren
T's grandchildren


I think this is pulling a fast one. It seems to me this would fail under all three, unless we know that someone has a living child somewhere that the facts aren't telling us about.

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

Re: Property Questions - Rule Against Perpetuities

Postby GMVarun » Sun May 08, 2011 12:45 pm

DaydreamBeliever wrote:Question 11 of 11: T devises property to A for life, and on A's death to A's children for their lives, and upon the death of A and A's children, to the person or persons indicated in the examples below. A and B survive T. Which of the examples DOES NOT violate the Rule Against Perpetuities?
B if A has no grandchildren then living
A's grandchildren
T's grandchildren


I am in somewhat of a post-exam haze, but let me see if I can help. T's grandchildren one should not violate RAP. T is devising this, so in other words, we do not start the RAP clock until after T's death. This means that T's children are a closed group (T cannot have any more children after T's death), and so, T's children can be the measuring life for T's grandchildren. If it said T conveys ... then there would be a problem. At the death of T's children, this interest will vest (become a vested remainder), or fail to vest (if T's children do not have children).

A's grandchildren will however fail RAP. This is because A's children cannot be measuring lives, since A is supposedly alive at the time of the grant. A can be a measuring life for A's children, but A could have more children, and so A's children cannot be a measuring lives.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B-Mo, hollamcholla1 and 17 guests