Another Property Q Forum

[target]

It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.

My property supplement calls it a contingent remainder (it doesn't really elaborate on it) but I see how it could be looked at your way. I guess it might depend on how the prof teaches the course.

Yeah, like I said it doesn't even matter anymore so who knows why/how everyone teaches it. In reality it makes no difference whatsoever. I do now recall reading somewhere that the class closes at death (which it obv does for other purposes like which children get) which would make it fail altogether and revert. I don't know why but I was thinking it created an interest in the heirs that would eventually take.

Whose death though? If A dies while B's still alive, the rule of Destructibility of contingent remainder will revert back to O and leave B's heirs nothing. If B dies intestate while A's still alive then vested remainder. If they are both alive then B's heirs have contingent remainder.

ETA: I f__king hate future interest right about now. Why dont they just let everyone fight it out for land?

[03121202698008]

It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.

My property supplement calls it a contingent remainder (it doesn't really elaborate on it) but I see how it could be looked at your way. I guess it might depend on how the prof teaches the course.

Yeah, like I said it doesn't even matter anymore so who knows why/how everyone teaches it. In reality it makes no difference whatsoever. I do now recall reading somewhere that the class closes at death (which it obv does for other purposes like which children get) which would make it fail altogether and revert. I don't know why but I was thinking it created an interest in the heirs that would eventually take.

Whose death though? If A dies while B's still alive, the rule of Destructibility of contingent remainder will revert back to O and leave B's heirs nothing. If B dies intestate while A's still alive then vested remainder. If they are both alive then B's heirs have contingent remainder.

ETA: I f__king hate future interest right about now. Why dont they just let everyone fight it out for land?

Eh, that's probably the right rule but it's kind of circular. It's a contingent remainder because it's destroyed when A dies. But it's destroyed because it's a contingent remainder that didn't vest.

Edit: Looks like that's it. http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/property/2-26-04.htm I retained only enough of this shit for the bar. The ironic thing is, my step-dad is a real estate attorney and my mom owns a title company. I've been doing title searches since I was 12 for closings...and never once have had to deal with one of these. No one does it this way anymore. It's all through probate laws and wills.

In my hometown, almost all of the FSCS, etc have been wiped out by county commissioner rulings. Anything granted before a certain date is treated as FSA and all title defects are wiped out.

[AreJay711]

Wait, how can this not vest? It has to vest either when A dies or when B dies. Right?

[03121202698008]

Wait, how can this not vest? It has to vest either when A dies or when B dies. Right?

That was the whole argument. Apparently, if A dies before B it will not vest in B's heirs because they are still unascertained and the rule of destructibility of contingent remainder wipes it out.

That's what I thought too. Apparently there is a CL doctrine though that overrides common sense.

[AreJay711]

Well, I'm just going to hope that the rest of my section is as ignorant to this as me and hope that it works out cause I never even knew there was such a restriction lol.

[03121202698008]

Well, I'm just going to hope that the rest of my section is as ignorant to this as me and hope that it works out.

I'm not even sure we read this rule. My property prof basically taught us what we needed for the bar and then said none of it matters anymore...

[03121202698008]

FWIW, apparently this rule only applies in a very few jurisdictions anymore. https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexi ... b75b2aeff3. And that summary was written in 1975.

[target]

FWIW, apparently this rule only applies in a very few jurisdictions anymore. https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexi ... b75b2aeff3. And that summary was written in 1975.

Yeah, this is why I hate these rules. Some of them only work in one state, and we still have to remember and talk about them on exam.