Top Law Schools

i am very confused by this hypothetical.

O to A for life or until B reaches 25, then to B.

To me that seems like a life estate subject to executory limitation and B has a vested remainder. However, i have been taught that remainders can never cut short an estate, and it seems like by reaching 25, B is cutting the estate short. My professor went over this hypothetical and said that it was a life estate subject to executory limitation and B had a remainder because it was following a life estate, but it just keeps confusing me the more i think about it. ive tried barbri video, E & E and CALI lessons and still seem confused on this subject so anything you all can suggest would be great.

.

that is what i thought it should be, but my professor said that since it is a life estate, it should be a remainder...which doesnt totally make sense to me

.

i guess its good to know that im not the only one confused by what she said then. she has always used a rule that when an estate can end naturally, it "rolls up" to either a reversion or a remainder and it encompasses all the different possibilities. i think that is throwing me off because none of the supplments or study aids seem to use that rule.

.