Here's a question that has my TA's and I stumped. Forum

[2807]

This is a good hypo that forces you to address the unknown "life" that measures the life estates at issue.

There is only analysis, there is not an answer.
Each party would define the issue.. and the corresponding required "life" to achieve the victory they want.
You want an answer?... ask a jury.


Looks like you folks have realized the dilemma with this.

Anyone taking a hard line is missing the objective analysis that would be required.

I thought this was a slam dunk too, and then I had to catch myself.
It is actually a good question that causes an extra level of analysis if C dies before B.

Meh, I think you're overplaying it. It's only confusing at first because C's interest ends with either one of two lives. It's just basically a combination of C having a life estate AND a life estate pur autre vie (one that ends with the death of another - B).

And to Hipster but athletic (sweet fixie, yo?), you're wrong about pur autre vie - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pur_autre_vie

Also, the point about the BS old world jargon would be valid, except ALL this stupid shit is old world jargon we have to learn for our property final (& the BAR). Yes it's confusing. That's the point of this thread.

You believe C can have a life estate AND a life estate pur autre vie at the same time, given in the same conveyance, and is clearly expressed in the wording of this one ?

Can you show us the law that supports that?

[Hipster but Athletic]

This is a good hypo that forces you to address the unknown "life" that measures the life estates at issue.

There is only analysis, there is not an answer.
Each party would define the issue.. and the corresponding required "life" to achieve the victory they want.
You want an answer?... ask a jury.


Looks like you folks have realized the dilemma with this.

Anyone taking a hard line is missing the objective analysis that would be required.

I thought this was a slam dunk too, and then I had to catch myself.
It is actually a good question that causes an extra level of analysis if C dies before B.

Meh, I think you're overplaying it. It's only confusing at first because C's interest ends with either one of two lives. It's just basically a combination of C having a life estate AND a life estate pur autre vie (one that ends with the death of another - B).

And to Hipster but athletic (sweet fixie, yo?), you're wrong about pur autre vie - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pur_autre_vie

Also, the point about the BS old world jargon would be valid, except ALL this stupid shit is old world jargon we have to learn for our property final (& the BAR). Yes it's confusing. That's the point of this thread.

You believe C can have a life estate AND a life estate pur autre vie at the same time, given in the same conveyance, and is clearly expressed in the wording of this one ?

Can you show us the law that supports that?

Look at any TM sublicense?

[2807]

Do you believe a conveyance and granting a license to use property are the same?

And, what is a TM sublicense?

[UVAIce]

It's just question of what B has conveyed to C. Did he convey his life estate to C, Per autre vie (an interest in the property so long as B is still alive) or did he give some kind of an odd hybrid life estate that is measured by C's life and then reverts to B if B is still alive but can be cut short by the death of B. I'm just going to say that I'm almost certain the latter does not exist. There should be a contingent remainder here given to whoever inherits from C - since C simply owns the life estate measured by the life of B. C, for example, could be able to give the life estate (measured by the life of B) to a hypothetical "D." Otherwise how could B have given the life estate to C in the first place.

Warning: 2L who has not thought about property for a full year.

[alphasteve]

You believe C can have a life estate AND a life estate pur autre vie at the same time, given in the same conveyance, and is clearly expressed in the wording of this one ?

Can you show us the law that supports that?

The language is "to C for life" and is a conveyance of a life estate. But, in effect, B conveys a life estate pur autre vie. This isn't a separate incidence of a property estate, it's a description of the life estate conveyance.

So yes, you can have both at the same time. Pur autre vie is a qualifier, not a whole new category of property interests.

[jgc02a]

Future Interests/estates.

A owns the FSA

A-->B "for life"

B now has a life estate.

B-->C "for life"

C now has the life estate.

Will the life estate end upon the death of B or C?

Thank you!

When B got the LE and transferred to C another way of looking at it is " to C for the life of B". Thus, the estate expires on the death of B.