Top-Law-Schools.comTLS
Home
Law School
Admissions
Law
Schools
Law
Students
TLS
Forums
 
Forum Index     Latest Posts     Forum Search     Mobile (on/off)     See Also: Rankings/Profiles   Interviews   LSAT Prep   TLS Stats


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Fee Tail v Fee Simple Conditional
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:22 am
Posts: 767
My casebook, hornbook and notes are very sketch on this topic and I'm kiling time waiting to hear back from the professor via email so I put the question to you:

Is there a meaningful difference between a fee simple conditional and a fee tail other than the latter came into existance after the passing of De Donis? It seems that the fee simple conditional may be more easily alienable, since it it dependant, generation after generation on the production of suitable issue, but I may be wrong on this.

Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee Tail v Fee Simple Conditional
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Posts: 3820
DocHawkeye wrote:
My casebook, hornbook and notes are very sketch on this topic and I'm kiling time waiting to hear back from the professor via email so I put the question to you:

Is there a meaningful difference between a fee simple conditional and a fee tail other than the latter came into existance after the passing of De Donis? It seems that the fee simple conditional may be more easily alienable, since it it dependant, generation after generation on the production of suitable issue, but I may be wrong on this.

Thoughts?


They're pretty different. A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent basically means that if the condition subsequent occurs, the grantee may be divested of the property if the grantor chooses to exercise his future interest: a right of entry.

The fee tail has mostly been abolished. It basically passes the interest down in perpetuity through the grantor's line.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee Tail v Fee Simple Conditional
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:51 am
Posts: 125
Fee Tail: "To A and the heirs of A's body." Like ph14 says, it passes down to A's issue until that bloodline dies out. It's no longer used in most places.
FSCS: "To A, unless A sells alcohol on the property." The part about the grantor retaining the right of re-entry if the condition is met can be express or implied.

Remember to differentiate FSCS from Fee Simple Determinable. "To A so long as A does not sell alcohol on the property." Same condition, but the durational language creates a determinable rather than conditional. The practical difference is that once the condition is met, the grantor's regains legal possessory right immediately; he doesn't have to assert a re-entry right as in FSCS.

There's more to all this, but them's the basics. HTH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee Tail v Fee Simple Conditional
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:58 am
Posts: 118
ph14 wrote:
DocHawkeye wrote:
My casebook, hornbook and notes are very sketch on this topic and I'm kiling time waiting to hear back from the professor via email so I put the question to you:

Is there a meaningful difference between a fee simple conditional and a fee tail other than the latter came into existance after the passing of De Donis? It seems that the fee simple conditional may be more easily alienable, since it it dependant, generation after generation on the production of suitable issue, but I may be wrong on this.

Thoughts?


They're pretty different. A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent basically means that if the condition subsequent occurs, the grantee may be divested of the property if the grantor chooses to exercise his future interest: a right of entry.

The fee tail has mostly been abolished. It basically passes the interest down in perpetuity through the grantor's line.


I don't think he's talking about fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, just a fee simple conditional. It is basically the same thing as a fee tail as far as I am aware. I think the fee simple conditional came first, which could only rely on primogeniture in order to continue. The fee tail came later, which could rely on any lineal descendant. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee Tail v Fee Simple Conditional
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Posts: 3820
jaymaynard wrote:
ph14 wrote:
DocHawkeye wrote:
My casebook, hornbook and notes are very sketch on this topic and I'm kiling time waiting to hear back from the professor via email so I put the question to you:

Is there a meaningful difference between a fee simple conditional and a fee tail other than the latter came into existance after the passing of De Donis? It seems that the fee simple conditional may be more easily alienable, since it it dependant, generation after generation on the production of suitable issue, but I may be wrong on this.

Thoughts?


They're pretty different. A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent basically means that if the condition subsequent occurs, the grantee may be divested of the property if the grantor chooses to exercise his future interest: a right of entry.

The fee tail has mostly been abolished. It basically passes the interest down in perpetuity through the grantor's line.


I don't think he's talking about fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, just a fee simple conditional. It is basically the same thing as a fee tail as far as I am aware. I think the fee simple conditional came first, which could only rely on primogeniture in order to continue. The fee tail came later, which could rely on any lineal descendant. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though


Ah I see, my bad. I remember glossing over that in my book but my professor pretty much said the fee tails have been substantially abolished and we didn't spend any time on them at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee Tail v Fee Simple Conditional
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 687
ph14 wrote:
jaymaynard wrote:
ph14 wrote:
DocHawkeye wrote:
My casebook, hornbook and notes are very sketch on this topic and I'm kiling time waiting to hear back from the professor via email so I put the question to you:

Is there a meaningful difference between a fee simple conditional and a fee tail other than the latter came into existance after the passing of De Donis? It seems that the fee simple conditional may be more easily alienable, since it it dependant, generation after generation on the production of suitable issue, but I may be wrong on this.

Thoughts?


They're pretty different. A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent basically means that if the condition subsequent occurs, the grantee may be divested of the property if the grantor chooses to exercise his future interest: a right of entry.

The fee tail has mostly been abolished. It basically passes the interest down in perpetuity through the grantor's line.


I don't think he's talking about fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, just a fee simple conditional. It is basically the same thing as a fee tail as far as I am aware. I think the fee simple conditional came first, which could only rely on primogeniture in order to continue. The fee tail came later, which could rely on any lineal descendant. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though


Ah I see, my bad. I remember glossing over that in my book but my professor pretty much said the fee tails have been substantially abolished and we didn't spend any time on them at all.


The fee tail is an estate whose purpose is to keep the property in a family dynasty. The traditional words to create a fee tail are "O to A and the heirs of his body." Property had to remain within the blood line till it ran out. When it ran out, the property reverted to O or his heirs or a third party (reversion or remainder).

Fee tails, in their original form, no longer exist. Fee tails are abolished in all but four states (Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island). The few states that have fee tails have placed some major restrictions on them.

Some states interpret a fee tail as fee simple absolute. Others allow the owner (including any future owner) to convert the fee tail to fee simple absolute at any point. Others give the owner a life estate and a remainder in fee simple to the progeny.

Fee Simple Conditional is very important to understand. Fee Tails on the other hand are not important.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee Tail v Fee Simple Conditional
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:02 pm
Posts: 20
lol


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elterrible78 and 25 guests



Search for:
Jump to:  
Login     TLS home     TLS forums     TLS wiki     Terms of Service     Privacy Policy     Copyright Policy     Contact     powered by phpBB