Future Interests Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Manteca
Posts: 1169
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:55 pm

Future Interests Question

Postby Manteca » Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:11 pm

Having an issue with a property hypo, hoping someone can help. I'm trying to figure out what interest is created by the following deed:

O conveys to A for life, then to B's children who survive A.

Would this be a vested remainder subject to complete divestment? Contingent remainder?

Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?

User avatar
encore1101
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby encore1101 » Sun Mar 15, 2015 4:27 pm

Not a property guy, but I believe the answer is contingent remainder.

From my barbri property outline:

d. Contingent remainders – Created in an unascertained person or is subject to a condition precedent, or both.
i. Unborn or unascertained persons –
1. “To A for life, then to B’s first child.” A is alive, and B has no children yet.
2. “To A for life, then to B’s heirs.” A is alive. B is alive. Live people have no heirs, so while B is alive, his heirs are unknown.
3. “To A for life, then to those of B’s children that survive A.” A is alive. Unknown which of B’s children, if any, will survive A.

Since it is unknown which of B's children, if any, would survive A until A actually dies

A vested remainder subject to total divestment is when the remainder target is ascertained, but there is a condition subsequent that can cut short the target's right to possession:
"To A for life, remainder to B, but if B dies under the age of 25, to C"

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby iamgeorgebush » Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:59 pm

Manteca wrote:O conveys to A for life, then to B's children who survive A.

Manteca wrote:Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?

I am no expert, but I think they both create life estates in A and contingent remainders in B's children.

The second conveyance seems a little ambiguous to me, though...does "B's surviving children" mean B's children who survive A, or B's children who survive B? I'm assuming it means the former (in which case the conveyance creates a contingent remainder), but if the latter, looks like the conveyance creates a vested remainder, indefeasibly vested, in B's surviving children.

Again, though, I'm no expert.

User avatar
ReasonableNprudent
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby ReasonableNprudent » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:04 am

iamgeorgebush wrote:
Manteca wrote:O conveys to A for life, then to B's children who survive A.

Manteca wrote:Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?

I am no expert, but I think they both create life estates in A and contingent remainders in B's children.

The second conveyance seems a little ambiguous to me, though...does "B's surviving children" mean B's children who survive A, or B's children who survive B? I'm assuming it means the former (in which case the conveyance creates a contingent remainder), but if the latter, looks like the conveyance creates a vested remainder, indefeasibly vested, in B's surviving children.

Again, though, I'm no expert.


Edit again...I'm still thinking about this.

User avatar
zombie mcavoy
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:11 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby zombie mcavoy » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:24 am

I'm already rusty so this might be totally wrong
Manteca wrote:O conveys to A for life, then to B's children who survive A.

a= life estate
o= possibility of reverter
children= contingent remainder subject to open

It can only vest at the moment of A's death; they haven't survived him until that moment.
Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?

It would be different; the class is not open and the remainder is vested. (as the other poster mentioned, I read this to assume that in this conveyance the children in question survived B, not A. If it were a it would be contingent for the same reason above, and the only difference would be that the class is closed)

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby iamgeorgebush » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:36 pm

Oh yeah, forgot the possibility of reverter in O.

I don't think one says "contingent remainder subject to open," though. I get what you're saying (the class of B's children is open, since there could be more of B's children after the conveyance), but at least the way I remember learning it, you just call it a contingent remainder.

User avatar
chuckbass
Posts: 9957
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby chuckbass » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:49 pm

I've already forgotten all of this... Studying for the bar is gonna be fun :roll:

User avatar
BmoreOrLess
Posts: 2083
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby BmoreOrLess » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:39 am

Contingent Remainders are never labeled as subject to open (or at least that's what our prof told us).

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby pancakes3 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:33 am

literally just had this lecture yesterday but
Manteca wrote:Having an issue with a property hypo, hoping someone can help. I'm trying to figure out what interest is created by the following deed:

O conveys to A for life, then to B's children who survive A.

Would this be a vested remainder subject to complete divestment? Contingent remainder?

Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?


Just had the reading for this so I should probably wait until the lecture but...

for hypo 1 - It's a contingent remainder because you don't know which specific children will survive A.
hypo 2 - it's complete divestment. The "B is already dead" is a red herring and only matters if the language had said "B's heirs" because heirs don't show themselves until someone dies.

User avatar
koval
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:19 am

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby koval » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:19 am

pancakes3 wrote:literally just had this lecture yesterday but
Manteca wrote:Having an issue with a property hypo, hoping someone can help. I'm trying to figure out what interest is created by the following deed:

O conveys to A for life, then to B's children who survive A.

Would this be a vested remainder subject to complete divestment? Contingent remainder?

Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?


Just had the reading for this so I should probably wait until the lecture but...

for hypo 1 - It's a contingent remainder because you don't know which specific children will survive A.
hypo 2 - it's complete divestment. The "B is already dead" is a red herring and only matters if the language had said "B's heirs" because heirs don't show themselves until someone dies.


Hypo 1:

A- life estate
B's children who survive A- contingent (only vests when A dies and the class is ascertainable)
O- reversion

Hypo 2:

A- life estate
B's surviving children- vested remainder (B is dead so class is ascertainable (it's also closed))
O- reversion

I'm assuming in your hypos that B has at least one child, or else these hypos are totally different. I'm a 1L so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is how the hypos play out.

User avatar
zombie mcavoy
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:11 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby zombie mcavoy » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:57 am

pancakes3 wrote:literally just had this lecture yesterday but
Manteca wrote:Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?

hypo 2 - it's complete divestment. The "B is already dead" is a red herring and only matters if the language had said "B's heirs" because heirs don't show themselves until someone dies.

it's not a red herring. If b were alive it would be a contingent remainder; because he is dead the survivors are ascertainable and the remainder is vested. Not sure where you're getting complete divestment from but it won't apply here; there are no conditions subsequent to divest the remainder.

User avatar
zombie mcavoy
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:11 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby zombie mcavoy » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:59 am

and yeah my b on contingent remainders not being labeled "subject to open." Was unsure of that when I posted

xMcGilicutty
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:12 am

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby xMcGilicutty » Wed Mar 18, 2015 3:56 pm

koval wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
Hypo 2:

A- life estate
B's surviving children- vested remainder (B is dead so class is ascertainable (it's also closed))
O- reversion

I'm assuming in your hypos that B has at least one child, or else these hypos are totally different. I'm a 1L so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is how the hypos play out.


In Hypo 2 (assuming B has at least one child) O does not have reversion. The remainder is vested there is nothing to go back to O. (I believe so anyway).

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Future Interests Question

Postby iamgeorgebush » Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:44 am

koval wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:literally just had this lecture yesterday but
Manteca wrote:Having an issue with a property hypo, hoping someone can help. I'm trying to figure out what interest is created by the following deed:

O conveys to A for life, then to B's children who survive A.

Would this be a vested remainder subject to complete divestment? Contingent remainder?

Would it be different if it said "O conveys to A for life, then to B's surviving children. (B is already dead)"?


Just had the reading for this so I should probably wait until the lecture but...

for hypo 1 - It's a contingent remainder because you don't know which specific children will survive A.
hypo 2 - it's complete divestment. The "B is already dead" is a red herring and only matters if the language had said "B's heirs" because heirs don't show themselves until someone dies.


Hypo 1:

A- life estate
B's children who survive A- contingent (only vests when A dies and the class is ascertainable)
O- reversion

Hypo 2:

A- life estate
B's surviving children- vested remainder (B is dead so class is ascertainable (it's also closed))
O- reversion

I'm assuming in your hypos that B has at least one child, or else these hypos are totally different. I'm a 1L so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is how the hypos play out.

I might be wrong, but I think in Hypo 1, it's a possibility of reverter, not a reversion. At the time of the grant, we don't yet know whether the reversionary interest in O will eventually become possessory, since some of B's children might survive A. That makes it a possibility of reverter, not a reversion. I think.

And in Hypo 2, if we interpret "B's surviving children" to mean "B's children who survive B," then there's no reversionary interest in O at all, since the remainder in B's children is indefeasibly vested. No way for O to get back Blackacre if the remainder is indefeasibly vested.

Looking at Hypo 2 again, though, maybe it's supposed to mean "B's children still living at the time of the grant"? It really is ambiguous.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lovesthelaw and 10 guests