need some help with future interests problem

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

need some help with future interests problem

Postby bartleby » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:35 am

O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.

A has a possessory estate in life estate subject to an executory limitation.

B has a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple absolute. Is this contingent because A needs to die first?

D has an executory interest in fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Is this shifting? Do I still have to mention the vested/divestment thing?

E has a contingent remainder in an executory interest in fee simple absolute. What's wrong with this

i have no answer key, lol

LSATNightmares
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby LSATNightmares » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:09 am

O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.

A has a possessory estate in life estate subject to an executory limitation. (This seems right)

B has a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple absolute. Is this contingent because A needs to die first? I just think B has a vested remainder. My prof. told me to look at the discrete grammatical unit to see what kind of future interest it has. It's not a contingent remainder, because the word "then" usually means "then, upon expiration of A's estate." The phrase "then" is not a part of the interest like a condition.

D has an executory interest in fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Is this shifting? Do I still have to mention the vested/divestment thing? I have the impression you don't have to say it's subject to divesting. Doesn't the definition of fee simple subject to an executory limitation mean there's a condition and it goes to someone other than the grantor? Plus, we don't care if someone else divests D of his interest when we look at what D's interest is. But that's the way we do it in my class.

E has a contingent remainder in an executory interest in fee simple absolute. What's wrong with this My big question is whether the "condition" you look at is part of E's interest. Grammatically, it's separated off. For future interests, according to my professor, you just look at E's grammatical grant. It would be a different story if it said, "then if D finishes college to E." That would definitely be a condition precedent. But here, the word "then" says that D's interest has already expired. I think E would have a future interest - a vested remainder in fee simple absolute (although the FSA thing is ambiguous).

i have no answer key, lol

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby sidhesadie » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:26 am

but isn't E's interest contingent on A marrying C?(condition precedent) If A doesn't marry C, it all goes to B and D and E are out of the picture.

(I hate property, so I'm not arguing, I'm asking)

Why does A have anything but a life estate? Nothing divests A's estate

Isn't B's vested remainder in fsa the one subject to executory limitation?

$^%*@ property.

User avatar
istara
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby istara » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:46 am

bartleby wrote:O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.


Could be totally wrong:

I read this as two options. Either A-C get married, in which case you go down the condition subsequent (D, then E) OR, A-C do not get married, in which case the condition fails and you go down the path of A, then B.

So A's life estate is a life estate subject to a condition subsequent. B's remainder in A's life estate is therefore also subject to that condition (making it a contingent remainder).

D's term of years (which I guess could be a life estate if he's really slow at finishing college..), is an executory interest (shifting? I think? I still don't understand the difference) since it would be triggered by cutting A's interest short. [edit, I forget D had to be in college for it to vest. That would technically make it contingent, but since executory interests are not classified as vested/contingent, it doesn't matter].

E's interest is also subject to the marriage condition, but it isn't directly cutting short anything, so I think it can be classified as a contingent remainder.

Again, I could be completely wrong (i'm studying immigration, not property, that's not for another week) so don't fail your property finals on account of me!

Edit: Oh, and O doesn't seem to have anything since, in the end, it will either go to E and his heirs or B and his heirs (unless you are in South Carolina where "and his heirs" still needs to be there or it's a life estate, in which case I believe O retains a possibility of reverter and a reversion).

.. I need more coffee..
Last edited by istara on Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby sidhesadie » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:51 am

Oh I see what you're saying.

I was reading it that if A married C, it goes to D at the end of A's life estate, not immediately when A marries C.

Gah, I don't like this problem. Maybe my prof won't be this mean.

User avatar
jessuf
Posts: 12551
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby jessuf » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:29 pm

A has a regular old present possessory life estate.

User avatar
istara
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby istara » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:03 pm

In my class, it would come down to that semicolon. If it was: "O to A for life, then to B, but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E" it would be different. My professor emphasized that comas make huge differences in how future interests are classified. This is the first one I've seen with a semicolon, but I wouldn't disregard it.

User avatar
Duke Silver
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby Duke Silver » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:08 pm

bartleby wrote:O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.

A has a possessory estate in life estate subject to an executory limitation.

B has a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple absolute. Is this contingent because A needs to die first?

D has an executory interest in fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Is this shifting? Do I still have to mention the vested/divestment thing?

E has a contingent remainder in an executory interest in fee simple absolute. What's wrong with this

i have no answer key, lol

O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.

This problem is confusingly worded. Yikes. So what I'm reading is: (to A for life, then to B) OR (if A....) because of the semicolon. It's sort of confusing as to which interest the last part cuts off.

So with that reading:
A has a life estate subject to an executory limitation (if I am reading it correctly, if it was only supposed to divest B, then a life estate). Not a condition subsequent, because that has a reversion.

B: vested remainder subject to complete divestment. It vests at the natural end of the last estate, so it's not contingent. To be contingent, it needs to be subject to a condition precedent (something specific has to happen before it vests). A dying isn't a condition precedent, because the interest vests when it's created. To put it another way, B already has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation (which = vested remainder subject to complete divestment in modern terms) and subject to A's life estate.

D: Shifting executory interest in a life estate determinable (or fee simple determinable), I think. Since the max amount of time D could be in college is his life, I think it's a life estate. I've seen some books that say it's a fee simple, so I'd check with your professor. Someone please let me know on this-- I'm finding conflicting answers. Since the estate will end by the words of duration O placed on it, it's determinable. Executory limitations have conditional terms like but if, etc. Like the first one in this problem.
D's interest would cut off A's interest immediately, so it's a shifting executory interest.

E: (Possibly shifting) executory interest in fee simple absolute. It conditionally cuts off either A/B's (well, specifically A's life estate, because A can't marry once she's dead, but B's future interest as well) or D's interest, depending on what happens. Shifting interest if it cuts off A/B's interest, because their estates are subj. to an executory limitation, and then I think determinable is just an executory interest with no terms of shifting/springing.

Whew. That was rough. Let me know if I messed up anywhere-- I've been studying a lot, but this stuff gets super confusing.

User avatar
istara
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby istara » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Duke Silver wrote:O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.

This problem is confusingly worded. Yikes. So what I'm reading is: (to A for life, then to B) OR (if A....) because of the semicolon. It's sort of confusing as to which interest the last part cuts off.

So with that reading:
A has a life estate subject to an executory limitation (if I am reading it correctly, if it was only supposed to divest B, then a life estate). Not a condition subsequent, because that has a reversion.

B: vested remainder subject to complete divestment. It vests at the natural end of the last estate, so it's not contingent. To be contingent, it needs to be subject to a condition precedent (something specific has to happen before it vests). A dying isn't a condition precedent, because the interest vests when it's created. To put it another way, B already has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation (which = vested remainder subject to complete divestment in modern terms) and subject to A's life estate.

D: Shifting executory interest in a life estate determinable (or fee simple determinable), I think. Since the max amount of time D could be in college is his life, I think it's a life estate. I've seen some books that say it's a fee simple, so I'd check with your professor. Someone please let me know on this-- I'm finding conflicting answers. Since the estate will end by the words of duration O placed on it, it's determinable. Executory limitations have conditional terms like but if, etc. Like the first one in this problem.
D's interest would cut off A's interest immediately, so it's a shifting executory interest.

E: (Possibly shifting) executory interest in fee simple absolute. It conditionally cuts off either A/B's (well, specifically A's life estate, because A can't marry once she's dead, but B's future interest as well) or D's interest, depending on what happens. Shifting interest if it cuts off A/B's interest, because their estates are subj. to an executory limitation, and then I think determinable is just an executory interest with no terms of shifting/springing.

Whew. That was rough. Let me know if I messed up anywhere-- I've been studying a lot, but this stuff gets super confusing.


You're right about B, I screwed that up, but after going over it again, I still think the life estate is just subject to a condition subsequent. In my notes, executory interests only apply as a label for future interests, not to current interests, and my professor was very clear that "to A, but if" = contingent and "to A so long as" = determinable. And I don't know where you are getting a reversion from? A reversion happens if you grant less than what you have (i.e. fee simple to life estate). Here, the whole pie is being given away somehow or other (unless there is a lot of treason going on and B and E both forfeit their interests), so there is no practical reversion.

The result is the same either way, so I suppose it doesn't matter, but.. it's bothering me now :P I may have to send this one to my prof.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12751
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby LeDique » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:19 pm

istara wrote:
Duke Silver wrote:O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.

This problem is confusingly worded. Yikes. So what I'm reading is: (to A for life, then to B) OR (if A....) because of the semicolon. It's sort of confusing as to which interest the last part cuts off.

So with that reading:
A has a life estate subject to an executory limitation (if I am reading it correctly, if it was only supposed to divest B, then a life estate). Not a condition subsequent, because that has a reversion.

B: vested remainder subject to complete divestment. It vests at the natural end of the last estate, so it's not contingent. To be contingent, it needs to be subject to a condition precedent (something specific has to happen before it vests). A dying isn't a condition precedent, because the interest vests when it's created. To put it another way, B already has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation (which = vested remainder subject to complete divestment in modern terms) and subject to A's life estate.

D: Shifting executory interest in a life estate determinable (or fee simple determinable), I think. Since the max amount of time D could be in college is his life, I think it's a life estate. I've seen some books that say it's a fee simple, so I'd check with your professor. Someone please let me know on this-- I'm finding conflicting answers. Since the estate will end by the words of duration O placed on it, it's determinable. Executory limitations have conditional terms like but if, etc. Like the first one in this problem.
D's interest would cut off A's interest immediately, so it's a shifting executory interest.

E: (Possibly shifting) executory interest in fee simple absolute. It conditionally cuts off either A/B's (well, specifically A's life estate, because A can't marry once she's dead, but B's future interest as well) or D's interest, depending on what happens. Shifting interest if it cuts off A/B's interest, because their estates are subj. to an executory limitation, and then I think determinable is just an executory interest with no terms of shifting/springing.

Whew. That was rough. Let me know if I messed up anywhere-- I've been studying a lot, but this stuff gets super confusing.


You're right about B, I screwed that up, but after going over it again, I still think the life estate is just subject to a condition subsequent. In my notes, executory interests only apply as a label for future interests, not to current interests, and my professor was very clear that "to A, but if" = contingent and "to A so long as" = determinable. And I don't know where you are getting a reversion from? A reversion happens if you grant less than what you have (i.e. fee simple to life estate). Here, the whole pie is being given away somehow or other (unless there is a lot of treason going on and B and E both forfeit their interests), so there is no practical reversion.

The result is the same either way, so I suppose it doesn't matter, but.. it's bothering me now :P I may have to send this one to my prof.


No, it's subject to an executory limitation because it goes to a future interest. The current/previous interest is subject to an executory limitation while the future interest is a executory interest.

User avatar
Duke Silver
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby Duke Silver » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:21 pm

istara wrote:
Duke Silver wrote:O to A for life, then to B; but if A marries C, then to D, if D is in college and until D finishes college, then to E.

This problem is confusingly worded. Yikes. So what I'm reading is: (to A for life, then to B) OR (if A....) because of the semicolon. It's sort of confusing as to which interest the last part cuts off.

So with that reading:
A has a life estate subject to an executory limitation (if I am reading it correctly, if it was only supposed to divest B, then a life estate). Not a condition subsequent, because that has a reversion.

B: vested remainder subject to complete divestment. It vests at the natural end of the last estate, so it's not contingent. To be contingent, it needs to be subject to a condition precedent (something specific has to happen before it vests). A dying isn't a condition precedent, because the interest vests when it's created. To put it another way, B already has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation (which = vested remainder subject to complete divestment in modern terms) and subject to A's life estate.

D: Shifting executory interest in a life estate determinable (or fee simple determinable), I think. Since the max amount of time D could be in college is his life, I think it's a life estate. I've seen some books that say it's a fee simple, so I'd check with your professor. Someone please let me know on this-- I'm finding conflicting answers. Since the estate will end by the words of duration O placed on it, it's determinable. Executory limitations have conditional terms like but if, etc. Like the first one in this problem.
D's interest would cut off A's interest immediately, so it's a shifting executory interest.

E: (Possibly shifting) executory interest in fee simple absolute. It conditionally cuts off either A/B's (well, specifically A's life estate, because A can't marry once she's dead, but B's future interest as well) or D's interest, depending on what happens. Shifting interest if it cuts off A/B's interest, because their estates are subj. to an executory limitation, and then I think determinable is just an executory interest with no terms of shifting/springing.

Whew. That was rough. Let me know if I messed up anywhere-- I've been studying a lot, but this stuff gets super confusing.


You're right about B, I screwed that up, but after going over it again, I still think the life estate is just subject to a condition subsequent. In my notes, executory interests only apply as a label for future interests, not to current interests, and my professor was very clear that "to A, but if" = contingent and "to A so long as" = determinable. And I don't know where you are getting a reversion from? A reversion happens if you grant less than what you have (i.e. fee simple to life estate). Here, the whole pie is being given away somehow or other (unless there is a lot of treason going on and B and E both forfeit their interests), so there is no practical reversion.

The result is the same either way, so I suppose it doesn't matter, but.. it's bothering me now :P I may have to send this one to my prof.



For an estate to be subject to a condition subsequent, there needs to be a reversion to the grantor, based on my notes/book/suppplement. I was just distinguishing it from executory limitation, but I was super unclear about that. Sorry!
Based on my notes/book/supplement, estates can be subject to executory interest, which are in a third party. It's a pretty common designation. Estates subject to a condition subsequent edit: have, I can't type, a future interest held by the grantor and have a right of re-entry by the grantor, which is why an executory interest in a third party is different-- it cuts it off automatically. We covered fee simples subject to an executory limitation as well as fee simples subject to a condition subsequent, and they're definitely different (notably the right of reentry). So I'd definitely check with your professor on that. Maybe y'all just covered future interests in different terminology than we did. I mean, estates with an executory limitation DO have a condition subsequent, but the term "estate subject to a condition subsequent" as used in class/the supplements I'm reading use it to refer to a fee simple where the grantor retains a conditional right of re-entry. So TL;DR, check with your prof. Do whatever he/she says. :D

Yup, O has given away O's entire interest. O doesn't have a reversion; I was just using that to show why it wasn't an estate subject to a condition subsequent. Now, the only thing I was confused about was whether D's life estate is determinable or subject to an executory interest. My supplements are telling me conflicting things.

User avatar
istara
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby istara » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:45 pm

We only studied 2: determinable (automatic forfeiture) or condition subsequent (right of re-entry).. (and otherwise it could just be a covenant, which would be easier on everyone. But that's definitely not the case here). And C-S is preferable because automatic forfeiture is no fun.

I do see what you mean, I just have absolutely nothing about executory limitations anywhere in my book/notes.

Edit: aha! I found one tiny note: professor doesn't care if we call it executory limitation or determinable or C-S.. and we still have to know the difference because it matters when you have to severe off invalid parts (such as with RAP issues). So.. I'm going with that. Glad to have figured it out though! Thanks for the help :)

User avatar
Duke Silver
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: need some help with future interests problem

Postby Duke Silver » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:10 pm

istara wrote:We only studied 2: determinable (automatic forfeiture) or condition subsequent (right of re-entry).. (and otherwise it could just be a covenant, which would be easier on everyone. But that's definitely not the case here). And C-S is preferable because automatic forfeiture is no fun.

I do see what you mean, I just have absolutely nothing about executory limitations anywhere in my book/notes.

Edit: aha! I found one tiny note: professor doesn't care if we call it executory limitation or determinable or C-S.. and we still have to know the difference because it matters when you have to severe off invalid parts (such as with RAP issues). So.. I'm going with that. Glad to have figured it out though! Thanks for the help :)



There you go!! Good question, it definitely helped me study for my final :D glad you figured it out!!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GreekOmega12, joman8390, JRA, shineoncrazydiamond and 10 guests