Property Question Forum

[solidsnake]

Hypo:

O conveys Blackacre "to A and his heirs, but if A goes to law school, then to O's heirs." What does O own in Blackacre?

A: Right of re-entry in fee simple absolute. Cannot be an executory interest because the Doctrine of Worthier Title nullifies O's heirs' executory interest and transfers that interest to the grantor. Grantor, by definition, cannot have an executory interest. A's present interest in fee simple subject to executory limitation thus becomes a present interest in fee simple subject to condition subsequent, giving O the right of re-entry in fee simple absolute.

Is that correct? The source from which I pulled this hypo says that A's fee simple subject to executory limitation becomes a fee simple determinable, which obviously gives O the possibility of reverter in fee simple. I think the supp is mistaken because the "but if" language in the conveyance is the language of condition, not duration (e.g., until, so long as, during, etc.).

Can anyone confirm?

[Enc333]

Sounds like a fee simple determinable.. because essentially if A goes to law school, O has the reversion (or possibility of reverter, however your professor articulates it)... its not an executory interest because blackacre would have to go to a third party (such as C) typically.

hope this helps

[solidsnake]

The sole question is, why is it a fee simple determinable and not a fee simple subject to condition subsequent?

[joobacca]

edit. i reread post

is it because fsd is automatic and fscscscss is not?

[Ignatius J. Reilly]

I believe the answer is FSSCS followed by a right of reentry. .

[solidsnake]

I believe the answer is FSSCS followed by a right of reentry. .

This is what i got, but supp says we're wrong. But I think *it's* wrong. Profs churn those things out with mistakes and shit all over the place.

[smalltown]

So god damn glad I don't have to do this shit anymore. Looks like you all are doing fine, though.

[Ignatius J. Reilly]

The supplement could very well be wrong. You could ask your property professor. If you do, please let us know what the prof says.

[dslslave]

Speaking of Property - these estate concepts have been very difficult for my class and I to grasp, as our professor is new to teaching Property and even jumbles the terms herself. This confuses us further.

Q: Are there any resources/charts/anything out there that can help me understand these terms and concepts? (Fee simple determinable, executory interest, etc.)

Pretty much anything after GIFTS is confusing in Property right now.

All help is appreciated. Thanks all!

[zizou]

I think it is a FSSCS. First of all the instrument lacks language that would suggest determinable like "unless" or "until". Second, if there is ambiguity courts usually resolve it in favor of FSSCS versus FSD. One reason for this is that courts don't like forfeitures and another is that in terms of adverse possession the statutory clock doesn't start running in a FSSCS until the right of entry is exercised versus a FSD where the clock begins to run the moment the condition occurs.