Prop. Question: Life Estate - contingent remainders Forum

[Mike12188]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, then to A's children and their heirs, but if at A's death he is not survived by any children, then to B and her heirs"

- So I understand that
1. A has a life estate
2. A's children have a contingent remainder in fee simple
3. B has a contingent remainder in fee simple
4. O has a reversion????

So the problem is with 4 - I have an explanation that says O has a reversion in fee simple if the life estate ends and A is still alvie and has no children.

How can the life estate end without A's death? I know the answer is prob. obvious but I'm seriously drawing a blank right now

[bartleby]

i can be totally wrong but is the to A's children and their heirs vested? because if they are not ascertained then its not a sure thing.

[bartleby]

i can be totally wrong but is the to A's children and their heirs vested? because if they are not ascertained then its not a sure thing.

wait nvm im not sure how the life estate can end if A is still alive

[Mike12188]

The only thing I could think of is A to fore life measured by X's life - but it clearly says "To A for life"

[bartleby]

okay wtf did you just say, u must be way ahead of us and using all that shelley's rule crap

[bartleby]

fuck ignore

[Mike12188]

nah wait doesnt A have a life estate subject to condition subsquent

No. "To A for life", ...classify - A has a life estate

besides. that is the written explanation given by my prof....I just have no idea how O has a reversion, well just how the life estate would end during A's life

[DocHawkeye]

If B does not survive A and A has no children that survive him, then the estate will rever to O (or his heirs in interest) in fee simple.

[bartleby]

If B does not survive A and A has no children that survive him, then the estate will rever to O (or his heirs in interest) in fee simple.

man i have to study this harder

[DocHawkeye]

If B does not survive A and A has no children that survive him, then the estate will rever to O (or his heirs in interest) in fee simple.

man i have to study this harder

B's contingent remainder is based on two contingencies: 1) That A will have no surviving children, which is expressed in the conveyance and 2) that she will survive A, implied by the conveyance. If both of these things don't occur, B's remainder will never vest in her and the estate will revert to the grantor, O, since there are no further contingencies.

Does that help?

[Rkl88]

I don't think that is true- in the event A has no children and B does not survive A the estate would go to B'a heirs. As for the actual problem, I don't see how the life estate could end while A is still alive, but could O's reversion be a fee simple subject to a springing executors interest???

[DocHawkeye]

I don't think that is true- in the event A has no children and B does not survive A the estate would go to B'a heirs. As for the actual problem, I don't see how the life estate could end while A is still alive, but could O's reversion be a fee simple subject to a springing executors interest???

Why? B's contingent remainder failed to vest. B's heirs recieve nothing.

[Mike12188]

Some of this was helpful and I appreciate it, but it hasn't answered my OP - here is the exact language.

At the end of A's life estate:
c. If A has no children, but is still alive (and thus has not died with no surviving children, as is required for B and her heirs to take), neither A's children and their heirs nor B and her heirs may take. Since O has not conveyed to anyone else in this case, the property returns to O for the time being.

[Rkl88]

The contingent remainder vested to B the second A died without any children. This was in fee simple so it would go to B's heirs. The fact that B is already dead would not matter. That is my take anyway. Do you have any authority supporting your view? I pulled up my property notes from last semester but could not find anything matching this...

[bartleby]

Doc's answer helped a lot. It's hard enough for me to get this terminology wrapped around my head so when they throw these trick possibilities at you...it is scary.

[jess]

.

[BeaverHunter]

I think B and his heirs have an executory interest. O wouldn't have a reversion. Either it goes to A's children and their heirs forever or B and his heirs forever.

[DocHawkeye]

I think B and his heirs have an executory interest. O wouldn't have a reversion. Either it goes to A's children and their heirs forever or B and his heirs forever.

The difference between an (shifting) executory interest and an alternative contingient remainder is whether or not the first future interest is vested (Stoebuck & Whitman, The Law of Property (3d ed. 2000)). This means that if A has children at the time the conveyance, the future interest in favor of A's children would be vested and thus B's interest would be a shifting executory limitation and B's heirs would inherit if B did not survive A. The future interest in A's children would also vest if A has children at some time after the conveyance but before the termination of his estate (i.e.: his death). If A has no children at the time of the conveyance and has none before he dies(or none survive him), the remainder in favor of his children fails to vest and thus B's interest is an alternative contongent remainder, which will vest on the extinguishment of A's estate. So long as B survives A, B will take in fee simple. If, however, A has no children at the time of his death and B does not survive A, then neither congingent remainder will vest and Blackacre will revert to O in fee simple.

Yikes.

[temperance]

A can lose his life estate during his lifetime because of waste. O has a reversion.

[apl6783]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, then to A's children and their heirs, but if at A's death he is not survived by any children, then to B and her heirs"

If A is alive and he has no kids then:

A has a life estate
A's unborn kids = contingent remainders
B = contingent remainder (they are NOT alternative CRs)
O = reversion

If A is alive and he has some kids (C and D) then:

C and D = vested remainders subject to open and subject to divestment (if they don't outlive A)
A = life estate
B = Executory interest (shifting)
O = nothing; if A dies without kids then it goes to B (or his heirs if he's dead) in FSA. If A dies with kids then it goes to them.



If A then dies while C and D are alive

Then C and D have it in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE. Probably as tenants in common unless they're in Mississippi and they get married to each other and the jurisdiction recognizes the tenancy by the entirety, in which case it'd be a tenancy by the entirety.

[apl6783]

If B does not survive A and A has no children that survive him, then the estate will rever to O (or his heirs in interest) in fee simple.

man i have to study this harder

B's contingent remainder is based on two contingencies: 1) That A will have no surviving children, which is expressed in the conveyance and 2) that she will survive A, implied by the conveyance. If both of these things don't occur, B's remainder will never vest in her and the estate will revert to the grantor, O, since there are no further contingencies.

Does that help?

This is wrong. If B dies, and then A dies without kids, then it goes to B's heirs.

If it had said "to B and his heirs if he survives A," then you'd be right.

[MsSmiley]

You always have a reversion when you have contingent remainders, even if there are alternative contingent remainders and thus should never revert back to O. The life estate could possibly end early (for example, A could forfeit the estate -- it would then revert back to O **edit -- I think the estate ending early would destroy the contingent remainders). However, the conveyance to A violates the Rule in Shelley's Case and thus A takes in Fee Simple. Not really sure if the contingency would affect the Rule or not, I think it would not. Additionally, many jurisdictions no longer apply the Rule (Texas, for example, does not). The fact that B dies before A does not affect the contingency, as contingent remainders can now be freely transferred in most jurisdictions.

As stated above, if A has children already, it is not a contingent remainder, but a vested remainder subject to divestment (it's subject to a condition precedent in a subsequent clause). B then holds an executory interest and there is no reversion back to O. I think it still violates the Rule in Shelley's case though.

I'm basing most of this on memory, haven't taken Property in almost a year.

[DocHawkeye]

You always have a reversion when you have contingent remainders, even if there are alternative contingent remainders and thus should never revert back to O. The life estate could possibly end early (for example, A could forfeit the estate -- it would then revert back to O **edit -- I think the estate ending early would destroy the contingent remainders). However, the conveyance to A violates the Rule in Shelley's Case and thus A takes in Fee Simple. Not really sure if the contingency would affect the Rule or not, I think it would not. Additionally, many jurisdictions no longer apply the Rule (Texas, for example, does not). The fact that B dies before A does not affect the contingency, as contingent remainders can now be freely transferred in most jurisdictions.

I'm basing most of this on memory, haven't taken Property in almost a year.

This doesn't violate the Rule in Shelley's Case because the first remainder is to A's children. If the conveyance had been "To A for life, and then to A's heirs" where "heirs" was not understood to mean "children" then A would take in fee simple.

This is wrong. If B dies, and then A dies without kids, then it goes to B's heirs.

If it had said "to B and his heirs if he survives A," then you'd be right.

I disagree. If B's interest is an alternative contingent remainder, and it fails to vest, then B's heirs cannot inherit property never owned by B.

[BeaverHunter]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, then to A's children and their heirs, but if at A's death he is not survived by any children, then to B and her heirs"

If A is alive and he has no kids then:

A has a life estate
A's unborn kids = contingent remainders
B = contingent remainder (they are NOT alternative CRs)
O = reversion

If A is alive and he has some kids (C and D) then:

C and D = vested remainders subject to open and subject to divestment (if they don't outlive A)
A = life estate
B = Executory interest (shifting)
O = nothing; if A dies without kids then it goes to B (or his heirs if he's dead) in FSA. If A dies with kids then it goes to them.



If A then dies while C and D are alive

Then C and D have it in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE. Probably as tenants in common unless they're in Mississippi and they get married to each other and the jurisdiction recognizes the tenancy by the entirety, in which case it'd be a tenancy by the entirety.

Whether or not something happens doesn't determine what you call a future interest. What B has NOW doesn't change depending on the happening of some event in the future.

[BeaverHunter]

This thread is filled with an absurd amount of misinformation. I suggest asking your professor.