rule against perpetuities

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

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 9:36 pm

rule against perpetuities

Postby unclej » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:44 am

Hi guys

I have a question about when you delete everything because of RAP.

when something is invalid because of RAP, you're supposed to cross it out.

so let's say Owner conveys his fee simple using this language: "To the first scientist who cures AIDS"
it might take more than 21 years for that scientist to come along. so To the first scientist who cures AIDS

so now, there is nothing, everything was crossed out. What are the interests?
Owner holds a reversion?

BrainsyK

Bronze
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:37 am

Re: rule against perpetuities

Postby BrainsyK » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:06 am

I think this would just be Klamath Falls because the interest would be invalid ab initio. Klamath Falls had fee simple subject to executory limitation, but that didn't matter and the Court just held that RAP violation in that case leads to reversion.

unclej

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: rule against perpetuities

Postby unclej » Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 am

BrainsyK wrote:I think this would just be Klamath Falls because the interest would be invalid ab initio. Klamath Falls had fee simple subject to executory limitation, but that didn't matter and the Court just held that RAP violation in that case leads to reversion.


thanks, so is it a reversion or is it a fee simple absolute? because a reversion implies that the property was transferred to someone else and the owner got it back, but in this instance, the property was never transferred.

I also had a follow up question which I was going to open a new thread about, but since you touched upon it....

How do we know Owner's interest is a fee simple subject to executory limitation?

BrainsyK

Bronze
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:37 am

Re: rule against perpetuities

Postby BrainsyK » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:38 am

K. I guess I have to retract my previous analysis. Sorry for misleading you. I'm just a fellow 1L trying to figure this out. Follow me on this.

Klamath Falls says fee simple subject to executory limitation because the interest was created by saying something like "To A so long as A used it as a library, then to B.” In fee simple subject to executory limitation, B has executory interest, which is subject to RAP. Hence, violation of the RAP invalidated the executory interest. This is not what you asked in the first question. Sorry. My mistake.

"To the first scientist who cures AIDS" would be, to the best of my knowledge, a contingent remainder, which is also subject to RAP, which means violation of RAP will void the interest.

As to whether any transfer ever occurs, in Klamath Falls, it is only B's interest that is invalid. Hence, the transfer to A would still be valid. It's only the consideration of B's interest that violates RAP.

So, as far as I know, you're right. Because there is only one interest in "To the first scientist who cures AIDS" and that interest is invalid, there would never be a transfer of any property.



Return to “Forum for Law School Students?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests