LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
CalBar3Day

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:20 am

LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by CalBar3Day » Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:38 pm

Posted this question on Adaptibar but I haven't received any feedback yet.

When someone devises property in a will via a LE pur autre vie, and the measuring life dies prior to the death of the testator, doesn't that portion of the will cancel out? For instance:

By his duly probated will, O devises Blackacre "to N for the life of B, then to S. All the rest,residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, to F."

B dies in 2014 and O dies in 2016. O is survived by N, S, F, and O's son. Who gets Blackacre?

User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 989
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by cnk1220 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:14 pm

Here's what I think..but I honestly could be totally wrong..

N has a life estate for the extent of B's life, so when B died, N's interest is over and then Blackacre went to S because S has a remainder...?

I don't think O has an interest in the property anymore because he gave a remainder to S, so F would not inherit under the will because O has nothing to give F with respect to Blackacre? But F would inherit other real/personal property just not Blackacre?

CalBar3Day

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:20 am

Re: LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by CalBar3Day » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:43 pm

The correct answer was S, but I just didn't understand why. I always thought that if the first part of the clause was extinguished (such as here where the measuring life died before the testator), that the second part of the devise would also be extinguished. I thought that everything would have ended up with F. I hate these questions.

User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 989
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by cnk1220 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:17 pm

CalBar3Day wrote:The correct answer was S, but I just didn't understand why. I always thought that if the first part of the clause was extinguished (such as here where the measuring life died before the testator), that the second part of the devise would also be extinguished. I thought that everything would have ended up with F. I hate these questions.

Ugh I know what you mean, I hate all the property questions, especially because it always takes me more than 1.8 minutes to figure out what is going on lol.
Last edited by cnk1220 on Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CalBar3Day

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:20 am

Re: LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by CalBar3Day » Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:55 pm

cnk1220 wrote:
CalBar3Day wrote:The correct answer was S, but I just didn't understand why. I always thought that if the first part of the clause was extinguished (such as here where the measuring life died before the testator), that the second part of the devise would also be extinguished. I thought that everything would have ended up with F. I hate these questions.

Ugh I know what you mean, I hate all the property questions, especially because if always takes me more than 1.8 minutes to figure out what is going on lol.
You and me both! Good thing we still have time to pick up some speed. Thanks for your help today and good luck!

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


musashino

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 am

Re: LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by musashino » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:13 pm

CalBar3Day wrote:Posted this question on Adaptibar but I haven't received any feedback yet.

When someone devises property in a will via a LE pur autre vie, and the measuring life dies prior to the death of the testator, doesn't that portion of the will cancel out? For instance:

By his duly probated will, O devises Blackacre "to N for the life of B, then to S. All the rest,residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, to F."

B dies in 2014 and O dies in 2016. O is survived by N, S, F, and O's son. Who gets Blackacre?
Pretty sure this is it but could be wrong:

B= Nothing, no property interest in Blackacre. B is simply the "measuring life." If B is one of the answer choices, should be an easy mark-off.

N= Life Estate Pur Autre Vie with B as the measuring life.

S= Indefeasibly Vested Remainder (S will take ALL of Blackacre after N's Life Estate extinguishes, i.e. when B dies. If N dies before B, Life Estate Pur Autre Vie goes to N's heirs). Of course this is all assuming this entire will only "executes" upon O's death on 2016, and O didn't change the language.

F= Has nothing to do with Blackacre. Zero property interest. The will is simply stating "EVERYTHING ELSE" APART from BLACKACRE. They're just naming the residuary estate of O, but once again, the will just said, "all the rest," which doesn't include Blackacre.
Last edited by musashino on Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

musashino

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 am

Re: LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by musashino » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:22 pm

CalBar3Day wrote:The correct answer was S, but I just didn't understand why. I always thought that if the first part of the clause was extinguished (such as here where the measuring life died before the testator), that the second part of the devise would also be extinguished. I thought that everything would have ended up with F. I hate these questions.
I'm gonna address this specifically because I think you're misunderstanding a pivotal point, but what do you mean by the "first part of the clause" was extinguished?

The measuring life's death is taken into account from the Will's language already. The Indefeasibly Vested Remainder Holder's entire function is to take the Life Estate (blackacre) as Fee Simple as soon as the Measuring Life dies. Since this is a will and doesn't execute until O dies, he could change his mind, but he apparently didn't and died in 2016 per the fact pattern. Ergo, S takes Blackacre.

B & F from the get-go has nothing to do with Blackacre. They hold no property interests in Blackacre whatsoever. F is more of a red herring for you to get attached to in case you didn't read attentively enough as it's talking about O's residuary estate and has nothing to do with Blackacre.

Hope that clarifies things somewhat.

Once again, not sure what you mean by the first part of the clause being extinguished.

CalBar3Day

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:20 am

Re: LE pur autre vie of someone who is deceased

Post by CalBar3Day » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:02 pm

musashino wrote:
CalBar3Day wrote:The correct answer was S, but I just didn't understand why. I always thought that if the first part of the clause was extinguished (such as here where the measuring life died before the testator), that the second part of the devise would also be extinguished. I thought that everything would have ended up with F. I hate these questions.
I'm gonna address this specifically because I think you're misunderstanding a pivotal point, but what do you mean by the "first part of the clause" was extinguished?

The measuring life's death is taken into account from the Will's language already. The Indefeasibly Vested Remainder Holder's entire function is to take the Life Estate (blackacre) as Fee Simple as soon as the Measuring Life dies. Since this is a will and doesn't execute until O dies, he could change his mind, but he apparently didn't and died in 2016 per the fact pattern. Ergo, S takes Blackacre.

B & F from the get-go has nothing to do with Blackacre. They hold no property interests in Blackacre whatsoever. F is more of a red herring for you to get attached to in case you didn't read attentively enough as it's talking about O's residuary estate and has nothing to do with Blackacre.

Hope that clarifies things somewhat.

Once again, not sure what you mean by the first part of the clause being extinguished.
Initially I thought that if the measuring life in a LEPAV died, the interest was void. However, I received feedback from an Adaptibar member and they were able to address the answer for me as follows:

The brother must be alive for the nephew to take, because if Brother is dead at the death of Testator, then Nephews interest in Blackacre is nothing, because the measuring life has already terminated his LE-PAV interest.

Since we know Testator did not intend to retain any interest in Blackacre in himself (he devised the full measure of the estate--Sister was to get the remainder in fee simple after Nephews LE interest terminates), then we can go ahead and give Sister the interest as soon as the preceding estate expires. Brothers death doesn't just make Testators gift to Sister void. Sisters interest is a shifting executory interest, because it divests Nephew from the estate after Brother dies. Sisters possessory interest automatically kicks in, and she may enter and take possession of Blackacre immediately after Brother dies.

The friend is there as a distractor. He gets the residuary, but Blackacre is not in the residuary estate. That would be contrary to Testators intent in the devise of Blackacre. The gift doesn't just completely lapse into the residuary. You must try and give effect to the Testators intent whenever possible.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”