Quick question- estates/future interest Forum

[cmartin5970]

I have a quick question I'm confused on. Here is a hypothetical the professor gave us:

O to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B divorces, then to O.

What kind of future interests are created?
Does B have a vested remainder subject to divestment?? that is what it sounds like to me but I have in my notes that vested & contingent remainders are future interests which are applicable when the interests are going to a 3rd party, not back to the grantor.

If I am wrong, then what interest does B have, and also what does O have? simply a reversion???

[dingbat]

I have a quick question I'm confused on. Here is a hypothetical the professor gave us:

O to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B divorces, then to O.

What kind of future interests are created?
Does B have a vested remainder subject to divestment?? that is what it sounds like to me but I have in my notes that vested & contingent remainders are future interests which are applicable when the interests are going to a 3rd party, not back to the grantor.

If I am wrong, then what interest does B have, and also what does O have? simply a reversion???

B has a vested remainder subject to divestment
O has a possibility of reverter

You are correct that vested & contingent remainders are only applicable to a 3rd party. B is a third party, and can have a remainder. O cannot have a remainder, only a reverter.

to sum up:
Transferor (O) can have the following types of future interest:
i - Reversion
ii - Possibility of Reverter (If condition met, goes back to O)
iii - Right of entry (if condition met, O can reclaim)
---the difference between ii and iii is that in ii O automatically gets it back, but in iii O has to choose to get it back
Transferor (B) can have the following types of future interest
i - Vested Remainder (will go to B)
ii - Contingent Remainder (if condition met, goes to B)
iii - Executory Interest (if condition no longer met, goes to B)
The difference between ii and iii is linguistic. ii -> if X then B; iii -> unless X, A, otherwise B
(another way to look at it is under ii B needs to meet a condition while under iii A needs to fuck up - but that analogy is not entirely correct)

[cmartin5970]

thanks for clearing that up and I've got one more question, hopefully you can clear this up

Heres the hypothetical - O to A for life or until B reaches 25, then to B.

It sounds like a life estate subject to executory limitation with a fee simple executory interest.

I am not sure if life estates can have executory limitations and executory interests. Maybe our professor has only showed us a limited scope of problems, but it seems like from my experience most life estates have remainders but I know under the rules of remainders it requires that estates end naturally and obviously if B reaches 25 he will terminate A's life estate before its natural ending.

[dingbat]

thanks for clearing that up and I've got one more question, hopefully you can clear this up

Heres the hypothetical - O to A for life or until B reaches 25, then to B.

It sounds like a life estate subject to executory limitation with a fee simple executory interest.

I am not sure if life estates can have executory limitations and executory interests. Maybe our professor has only showed us a limited scope of problems, but it seems like from my experience most life estates have remainders but I know under the rules of remainders it requires that estates end naturally and obviously if B reaches 25 he will terminate A's life estate before its natural ending.

there's an interpretation issue here. if A dies before B reaches age 25, it can be interpreted as follows
Option 1: O to A for life or until B reaches 25, then to B.
Option 2: O to A for life or untilif B reaches 25, then to B.

Under option 1
O has no interest
A has a term estate (I'm not sure of the terminology and don't have my notes handy, but it's basically a life estate but for a fixed time period - being when B reaches 25)
B has a vested remainder (B will take possession when B reaches 25 or when A dies, whichever occurs first)

Under option 2
O has a reversion
A has possessory interest in a life estate subject to executory limitation (B's executory interest)
B has executory interest (does not vest until B is 25)

[cmartin5970]

thanks, ill be sure to ask the professor for clarification. she has stressed that remainders never cut an interest short so I would assume she would prefer the 2nd option but thanks for clearing it up. For some reason I keep questioning whether I can have a term of years/life estate/fee tail subject to executory limitation and I'm really not sure why. As a general rule if the future interest is going to a 3rd party, then the possessory interest is going to be (whatever kind of estate) subject to executory limitation correct if there is any sort of stipulation? I understand that if it is simple O to A for life, then to B that A simply has a life estate.

[dingbat]

The question phrased is a matter of interpretation, which is never good (but always happens)
Try to break down the different parts - draw a timeline if it helps.

My advice (fellow 1L, so take it with a grain of salt) is to make sure you understand the concepts first, and only then worry about definitions.

In your question, unless A dies, B gets the property at age 25, meaning that A has it for a fixed duration. The only question is what happens if A happens to die before B reaches 25.
Depending on how one interprets the statement, it either reverts back to O (to A for life, but if B reaches 25, to B), or goes to B (A for term of years, then to B)

If I were interpreting this statement, I'd use option 2 - it's simpler and leaves no room for ambiguity - under every circumstance it'll end up going to B.

Option 1 would need to be re-written as follows:
To A for a fixed period (until B reaches 25), then to B, contingent on B surviving to 25, otherwise to A for life and then revert back to O.
A has 2 different sets of interest:
A1) term duration - until B turns 25
A2) contingent future interest - if B does not make it to 25, A gets a future interest (vesting at the end of the term of A1) for life
B has a contingent remainder subject to condition precedent (conditioned on B attaining age 25)
O has a possibility of reverter (B does not attain age 25, but does not revert until after A dies)

[cmartin5970]

thanks that does make it more clear, so are there any combinations which are impossible? i know there can be no possibility of reverter or right of entry when the future interest is to a 3rd party...but is there any interest which cannot go with a certain type of estates? or is it possible to have a life estate subject to condition subsequent, life estate subject to executory interest or life estate determinable