Top Law Schools

Q: O to A for life than to A’s children who turn 18. A has no children now.

A: A has a life estate. Children have a contingent remainder. The rule applies because the
children are in a suspect class. After killing all the people in the contract and wait 21 years, A could
have a child so RAP does not void the interest. A ends up with a life estate and O has a possibility
of reversion.

How are the children in a suspect class? I thought that you would know for certain at the death of A + 21 years whether or not he would have any children and if they would turn 18 or not.

I don't know what a suspect class is, I don't think my professor ever used that term. But RAP applies because it always applies to contingent remainders.

A has a life estate

A is the validating life

When A dies we will know how many children he has. Even if he has a child still in the womb they will turn 18 in less than 21 years, so RAP is not violated.

Oops! Sorry, I misread the question as saying that the RAP does void the interest. I copied the answer verbatim and it tripped me up because the last statement of the answer didn't mention anything about A's children so I assumed the interest was void. Hypothetically, if this question was given on an exam, would it be okay to leave out A's children having a contingent remainder?

FOund this while googling "suspect class"

http://nsulaw.nova.edu/faculty/document ... _exam3.PDF

These answers are really strangely written

EDIT: And yeah I'm pretty sure you have to say the children have a contingent remainder. Especially if the question asks you to identify all the interests. If it just asks does it violate RAP then maybe not but its probably still a good idea

haha yeah I was just googling RAP hypos and found those so I'm just reviewing them briefly, thanks for the help!