RAP Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
perfunctory

Bronze
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:25 pm

RAP Question

Postby perfunctory » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:19 pm

"To A for life, then to B if any person goes to Saturn." Does this violate RAP? I thought no because within 21 years of A's death, we'll know if anyone has gone to Saturn. But apparently I'm wrong....

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: RAP Question

Postby lymenheimer » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:34 pm

If it does violate, it's because it could be >21 years after A's death before someone goes to Saturn.

Something something the interest has to vest within 21 years. If you can come up with a scenario where the interest does not vest before year 21, it violates RAP (we didn't do that much work on it, but I think this is right).

User avatar
perfunctory

Bronze
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: RAP Question

Postby perfunctory » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:51 pm

Oh because it MUST vest.

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: RAP Question

Postby lymenheimer » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:09 pm

perfunctory wrote:Oh because it MUST vest.

Sounds right. My property exam is my last exam, so I'm not reviewing for it yet.

didgeridoo92

New
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:08 am

Re: RAP Question

Postby didgeridoo92 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:52 am

perfunctory wrote:"To A for life, then to B if any person goes to Saturn." Does this violate RAP? I thought no because within 21 years of A's death, we'll know if anyone has gone to Saturn. But apparently I'm wrong....


Hmmm. A future interest violates RAP if it is possible that it might vest after all relevant lives in being at the time of the conveyance have died + 21 years. B is a relevant life at time of conveyance, and he has a contingent remainder because the "if someone goes to Saturn" clause is a condition precedent to B's taking. A dies right at conveyance, no person has gone to Saturn yet so B can't take, so the property reverts back to grantor who held a reversion in that case. 1 year later B dies, but his estate still holds his future interest. It's possible that 100 years later a person goes to Saturn, thus triggering B's estate's (now executory?) interest. Therefore, because it is possible that B's interest MIGHT vest after all relevant lives in being have died + 21 years, it violates the rule against perpetuities.

You strike B's future interest from the conveyance, leaving A with a life estate that reverts back to grantor on his death. I might have screwed that up badly, and if it's confusing I apologize, property exam PTSD

User avatar
KMart

Gold
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:25 am

Re: RAP Question

Postby KMart » Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:56 am

perfunctory wrote:"To A for life, then to B if any person goes to Saturn." Does this violate RAP? I thought no because within 21 years of A's death, we'll know if anyone has gone to Saturn. But apparently I'm wrong....

someone can go to saturn 21 years after A's death so it violates the RAP

JusticeChuckleNutz

New
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:27 pm

Re: RAP Question

Postby JusticeChuckleNutz » Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:37 am

Fuck RAP. I just had my property exam and luckily my professor was gentle with it. Everyone should adopt the "wait and see approach" like California and all our 1L lives would be better for it

anonanonny

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: RAP Question

Postby anonanonny » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:43 am

Just took my Wills & Trusts exam, and we had a whole section on RAP. Here's what I would say.

This interest is not valid because a person may go to Saturn more than 21 years after any life in being at the time the interest is created. A person might go to Saturn 30 years after all people alive on the date of the interest are dead. Remember that to be valid an interest does not need to vest within 21 years of a life in being's death. Rather, the interest must vest or not vest within 21 years of a life in being. You can try thinking about RAP problems in two ways. You'll always we able to point to a validating life or an invalidating story. Here, if you try looking for a validating life, you cannot find one. We will not know within 21 years of A or B's death whether the interest will vest, so it's invalid.

Hope this helps. Also did well in Property and we had an entire section devoted to RAP there too. [But: If the interest was to B for life I believe this would be valid because a life interest ends at a person's death and a fee simple does not end at a person's death.]

User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: RAP Question

Postby lymenheimer » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:45 am

oh yea. listen to these guys. lives in being +21 years.

B90

Silver
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: RAP Question

Postby B90 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:06 am

perfunctory wrote:Oh because it MUST vest.


More accurately, it must vest OR fail...

If we know for certain it will fail, that satisfies RAP too.

Seriously memorize this and do not allow yourself say "must vest within..."
Always, always, always say "must vest or fail"

To quote my hs english teacher, "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. Imperfect practice makes imperfect. Therefore, you must practice perfectly."

Yes, this makes my english teacher sound like a douche (he's not) and me as well for quoting him, but it will serve you well on your final and help you immensely when you have to study for the bar. The key to success on essay exams is having rules memorized CORRECTLY to the point where you can recite them in your sleep.

User avatar
perfunctory

Bronze
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: RAP Question

Postby perfunctory » Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:03 pm

anonanonny wrote:Just took my Wills & Trusts exam, and we had a whole section on RAP. Here's what I would say.

This interest is not valid because a person may go to Saturn more than 21 years after any life in being at the time the interest is created. A person might go to Saturn 30 years after all people alive on the date of the interest are dead. Remember that to be valid an interest does not need to vest within 21 years of a life in being's death. Rather, the interest must vest or not vest within 21 years of a life in being. You can try thinking about RAP problems in two ways. You'll always we able to point to a validating life or an invalidating story. Here, if you try looking for a validating life, you cannot find one. We will not know within 21 years of A or B's death whether the interest will vest, so it's invalid.

Hope this helps. Also did well in Property and we had an entire section devoted to RAP there too. [But: If the interest was to B for life I believe this would be valid because a life interest ends at a person's death and a fee simple does not end at a person's death.]


Okay but for this example: "to A for life, then to B if B goes to Saturn" RAP is valid right? Why wouldn't we just say B might go to Saturn more than 21 years after A's death. I'm thinking that we'll know within 21 years of A's death, whether someone has or has not gone, period. Why would we look beyond that? It's about the 21 years.

anonanonny

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: RAP Question

Postby anonanonny » Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:11 pm

perfunctory wrote:
anonanonny wrote:Just took my Wills & Trusts exam, and we had a whole section on RAP. Here's what I would say.

This interest is not valid because a person may go to Saturn more than 21 years after any life in being at the time the interest is created. A person might go to Saturn 30 years after all people alive on the date of the interest are dead. Remember that to be valid an interest does not need to vest within 21 years of a life in being's death. Rather, the interest must vest or not vest within 21 years of a life in being. You can try thinking about RAP problems in two ways. You'll always we able to point to a validating life or an invalidating story. Here, if you try looking for a validating life, you cannot find one. We will not know within 21 years of A or B's death whether the interest will vest, so it's invalid.

Hope this helps. Also did well in Property and we had an entire section devoted to RAP there too. [But: If the interest was to B for life I believe this would be valid because a life interest ends at a person's death and a fee simple does not end at a person's death.]


Okay but for this example: "to A for life, then to B if B goes to Saturn" RAP is valid right? Why wouldn't we just say B might go to Saturn more than 21 years after A's death. I'm thinking that we'll know within 21 years of A's death, whether someone has or has not gone, period. Why would we look beyond that? It's about the 21 years.

For that example, the interest would be valid. The difference is that we will know within B's lifetime whether B goes to Saturn, but we would not know within 21 years of B's lifetime whether anyone goes to Saturn (because someone might go to Saturn 22 years after B's death, for example).

Let me see if I get what you're saying about knowing within 21 years of A's death. If you think about it literally, you will know within 21 years of A's death if someone did or did not go to Saturn, but the key is that there is a possibility (however remote) that the interest can vest past the perpetuities period. In the original example, not the one I'm quoting, there is a possibility that someone would go to Saturn more than 21 years after A dies. It is this remote possibility that invalidates the interest. I hope this makes sense.



Return to “Forum for Law School Students�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests