Another Property Q

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
TurkeyDay
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:20 pm

Another Property Q

Postby TurkeyDay » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:58 pm

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby target » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:07 pm

TurkeyDay wrote:O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..


If B is not living, B's heirs have vested remainder. No executory interest here since there's no divestment of A's interest.

Also, If B's living, and have at least one child, it would be vested remainder subject to open. If B is living and currently has no children, then contingent remainder.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:08 pm

target wrote:
TurkeyDay wrote:O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..


If B is not living, B's heirs have vested remainder. No executory interest here since there's no divestment of A's interest.

Also, If B's living, and have at least one child, it would be vested remainder subject to open. If B is living and currently has no children, then contingent remainder.


It can't be vested because you don't have heirs until you die. It's an EI. It is divesting the original grantor to whom it will revert until B dies and has heirs. If B is still alive, you have no way to know who is heirs will be. Not all heirs are children. If no kids spouse, no spouse then parents.

If it said children. You'd be correct.
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby target » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:10 pm

blowhard wrote:
target wrote:
TurkeyDay wrote:O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..


If B is not living, B's heirs have vested remainder. No executory interest here since there's no divestment of A's interest.

Also, If B's living, and have at least one child, it would be vested remainder subject to open. If B is living and currently has no children, then contingent remainder.


It can't be vested because you don't have heirs until you die. It's an EI. It is divesting the original grantor to whom it will revert until B dies and has heirs.


My bad. I misread heirs as children. :oops:

TurkeyDay
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby TurkeyDay » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:23 pm

So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:25 pm

TurkeyDay wrote:So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?


Once again, there are no heirs if you're alive. Remainders are only in existing identifiable people. Just because B has children now, doesnt mean they will outlive him. The first two are both EIs. The last is correct.

target
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby target » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:32 pm

blowhard wrote:
TurkeyDay wrote:So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?


Once again, there are no heirs if you're alive. Remainders are only in existing identifiable people. Just because B has children now, doesnt mean they will outlive him. The first two are both EIs. The last is correct.


I thought contingent remainder can be vested in unborn/unascertained people, no? Contingent remainder and shifting EI always confuse me. Is there a good way to distinguish the two?

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:39 pm

target wrote:
blowhard wrote:
TurkeyDay wrote:So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?


Once again, there are no heirs if you're alive. Remainders are only in existing identifiable people. Just because B has children now, doesnt mean they will outlive him. The first two are both EIs. The last is correct.


I thought contingent remainder can be vested in unborn/unascertained people, no? Contingent remainder and shifting EI always confuse me. Is there a good way to distinguish the two?


True, been awhile. The children definitely have an EI because it's not clear they'd outlive B. I'd say an EI for both because a remainder has to be capable of taking upon expiration of the estate. If A dies before B, his heirs don't exist and can't take.

A contingent remainder is like "A to B if B lives to 21."
But in your hypo, If A dies and B lives his kids can't take yet because they aren't heirs.

BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby BeaverHunter » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:54 pm

If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).

BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby BeaverHunter » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:04 pm

TurkeyDay wrote:So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?


You're doing this wrong. They don't have different things depending on all the different outcomes. Simplify. Also no executory interests here.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:18 pm

BeaverHunter wrote:If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).


It can't be a remainder because it cannot necessarily pass when A dies. It has to be an EI. If B is alive, there is a reversion as you point out. A remainder cannot follow a reversion.

Nor is it contingent. For it to be a contingency, the estate wouldn't pass at all if A didn't outlive B. E.g. A to B's heirs if B outlives A. That's not what happens here. If A dies and B is alive, it passes to O until B dies, then to his heirs. It will take no matter what, just not necessarily when A dies.
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby BeaverHunter » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:22 pm

blowhard wrote:
BeaverHunter wrote:If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).


It can't be a remainder because it cannot necessarily pass when A dies. It has to be an EI. If B is alive, there is a reversion as you point out. A remainder cannot follow a reversion.


Yeah, that's why it is a contingent remainder. If B outlives A B's heirs have nothing.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:23 pm

BeaverHunter wrote:
blowhard wrote:
BeaverHunter wrote:If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).


It can't be a remainder because it cannot necessarily pass when A dies. It has to be an EI. If B is alive, there is a reversion as you point out. A remainder cannot follow a reversion.


Yeah, that's why it is a contingent remainder. If B outlives A B's heirs have nothing.



That's not what his hypo says. That would be A to B's heirs if A outlives B. This estate will pass to B's heirs whenever B dies. Whether that is right when A dies or after a reversion to O. A remainder cannot follow a reversion. This is an exact example from the handout we got in property last year...a class I did well in FWIW.


• O to A for life, remainder to the heirs of B.
 B would have fee simple, A life estate.
 B has nothing…if he is alive when A dies, reversion to grantor (or his heirs) until B dies and has heirs. (No heirs until dead.) Though irrevocable by grantor…
B's heirs have an EI.
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:27 pm

TurkeyDay wrote:O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with a condition precedent and/or no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.
Last edited by AlexanderSupertramp on Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:28 pm

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:
TurkeyDay wrote:O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with no condition precedent and no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.


Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

Edit: A quick google shows examples of this going each way. I guess go with what you were taught. We were taught a remainder cannot follow a reversion and this was a specific example provided for EI. I get that the heirs are unascertained. My problem is though that this may not take upon the natural termination of the estate.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18418
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby bk1 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:38 pm

blowhard wrote:Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.


Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:39 pm

blowhard wrote:
AlexanderSupertramp wrote:
TurkeyDay wrote:O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with no condition precedent and no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.


Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.


No, they wouldn't the reversion follows the CR in case in doesn't vest.
Check out #3
http://www.donaldjkochan.com/classes/pr ... oblems.pdf

Check out #6 and #8
http://www.law.uidaho.edu/documents/Fut ... 5528&doc=1

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:43 pm

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:
blowhard wrote:
AlexanderSupertramp wrote:
TurkeyDay wrote:O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with no condition precedent and no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.


Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.


No, they wouldn't the reversion follows the CR in case in doesn't vest.
Check out #3
http://www.donaldjkochan.com/classes/pr ... oblems.pdf

Check out #6 and #8
http://www.law.uidaho.edu/documents/Fut ... 5528&doc=1


3 says children. You may die without children. Everyone has heirs (or the state acts as an heir). 6/8 are conditions subsequent/precedent and entirely different.
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:44 pm

I was trying to illustrate that a reverison in the grantor may follow a CR and that the CR doesn't cut it off.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:45 pm

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:I was trying to illustrate that a reverison in the grantor may follow a CR and that the CR doesn't cut it off.


None of those say that. There, it is possible none of those conditions could ever be met. If they all failed, it would revert to O. But B will always have heirs at some point.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:48 pm

bk1 wrote:
blowhard wrote:Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.


Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?


Why wouldn't it? There isn't a condition...it doesn't say to B's heirs if A outlives B. It creates a future irrevocable property interest in B's heirs, whoever they may be.

BeaverHunter
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:05 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby BeaverHunter » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:50 pm

bk1 wrote:
blowhard wrote:Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.


Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?


You are correct. The interest in B's heirs terminates if that class is not ascertained at A's death (which would be the case if B outlives A).

This is an easy problem. A has a life estate, heirs of B have a contingent remainder, O has a reversion. Anyone with an upcoming property exam that doesn't get this is in for a rough day.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:52 pm

BeaverHunter wrote:
bk1 wrote:
blowhard wrote:Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.


Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?


You are correct. The interest in B's heirs terminates if that class is not ascertained at A's death (which would be the case if B outlives A).

This is an easy problem. A has a life estate, heirs of B have a contingent remainder, O has a reversion. Anyone with an upcoming property exam that doesn't get this is in for a rough day.


It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18418
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Another Property Q

Postby bk1 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:10 pm

blowhard wrote:It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.


My property supplement calls it a contingent remainder (it doesn't really elaborate on it) but I see how it could be looked at your way. I guess it might depend on how the prof teaches the course.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another Property Q

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:14 pm

bk1 wrote:
blowhard wrote:It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.


My property supplement calls it a contingent remainder (it doesn't really elaborate on it) but I see how it could be looked at your way. I guess it might depend on how the prof teaches the course.


Yeah, like I said it doesn't even matter anymore so who knows why/how everyone teaches it. In reality it makes no difference whatsoever. I do now recall reading somewhere that the class closes at death (which it obv does for other purposes like which children get) which would make it fail altogether and revert. I don't know why but I was thinking it created an interest in the heirs that would eventually take.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests