Banana1 wrote:b290 wrote:Banana1 wrote:property question
oliver conveys Blackacre “to Anna, but if the land is ever used as a business during Anna’s lifetime, to Ben.”
does this violate the rule of perpetuities ? i thought it did because it says life time
No, it’s fine. RAP violations depend on the measuring life + 21 years (MBE/UBE is 21 years, NY is different). Property interests must vest within that time or fail. Here, Anna’s life is the measuring life (she will die at some point after the conveyance). The combination of the lifetime restriction, with the definite time period, ensures that a property interest will vest and not violate the RAP. Therefore, the conveyance is acceptable..[...]
The last part doesnt make sense to me YET.
Thanks tho.. I came across a question which was really similar but it said
O conveys to A but if in 20 years it is used as business then to B
This didnt violate RAP which I get but the other one still doesnt make sense to me
That’s because in that conveyance, it’s guaranteed to vest/change hands in the RAP time period (measuring life + 21 years). It doesn’t even wait for the measuring life to die But even if A died right after the conveyance, there’s still 20 years in which whomever gets the property from A must not use it as a business. 20 < 21 so it’s good under the RAP
In the case you presented earlier:
“O to A, but if A uses premises for a business, then to B”
it’s still ok. The restriction that’ll switch ownership to B lasts (technically) for A’s life (measuring life) + 21 years after that. But A must use it as a business while she’s alive to terminate her estate. She can’t use it as a business when she’s dead. The property will vest either in her lifetime (because of A’s business use) or when she’s dead (to her heirs/devisees), so by definition - it doesn’t violate RAP.
The key to understanding RAP (and applying it correctly is knowing the measuring life, and when the interest is created. Once you’ve figured out that out, tack on the RAP period and use that as your measuring stick.
Here’s an example of that conveyance changed to violate the RAP:
“O to A and her heirs, but if it is ever used as a business, then to B”
We’ll presume that A has children, grandchildren and no will (you’ll know why I say this when you study Wills) to make this easy. A is the measuring life as before, but the restriction is for her and all who take after her - in perpetuity. In this scenario, there’s a possibility that 21 years after A dies, the property may/may not change hands. That violates the RAP and the offending part nullified.
If the above still makes no sense to you, don’t feel bad. I remember hearing in law school about a NY attorney who won his malpractice lawsuit because the RAP is hard to apply. But you need to get a basic grasp of it - there will be a question on the MBE and possibly in a property essay. Feel free to forget it after, unless you practice in Property/Estates Law
For more info, read here:
http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreute ... petuities/