future interests question Forum

[SeymourShowz]

I got into a debate with some friends last night about this conveyance. We had a very similar question on the final.

O -> A for life, then to B and his heirs, but if B ever attends law school, to C and his heirs.

The debate was over what interest B has. I said "vested remainder in FSA subject to divestment." A couple friends of mine said it was "vested remainder in FSA on executory limitation subject to divestment."

I'm thinking that it wouldn't actually become subject to an executory limitation until A dies, assuming B has not attended law school. Who's right?

[SeymourShowz]

oh shit. I just realized that I made a huge error on the exam that is really going to cost me.

I used the abbreviation FSA when I really just should have put Fee simple. Wow. I'm fucked.

[Helmholtz]

Vested remainder in FS subject to divestment seems right to me.

[SeymourShowz]

unfortunately it doesn't even matter because I blew it by writing FSA instead of FS. My god I can't believe I spent all this time studying property, god knows how much money on supplements, and it's all for nothing because I used the wrong abbreviation. I guess I'm going to go get a 12-pack.

[Kilpatrick]

You wrote FSA meaning fee simple absolute instead of FS meaning fee simple (absolute)? Why would that be a big deal.

Unfortunately I think you're wrong, B has a contingent remainder in fee simple subject to complete divestment by an executory limitation/interest. C has a shifting executory interest in fee simple.

[SeymourShowz]

I wrote that C has a shifting executory interest in FSA. And I made this same error on many other problems.

That's wrong, isn't it? I should have just said FS. I specifically recall the prof saying in class that people would do this on the exam and that it's wrong. This is unbelievably painful. I really felt like I had a good shot at an A after the exam.

[Kilpatrick]

It seems like different property profs are anal about different things. In my class if you said FS it was understood that you meant FSA and vice versa. I'm not sure why FSA would be wrong. Why would your prof want you to be less specific?

[SeymourShowz]

But they are not interchangeable in all contexts. For instance, you can't have an "FSA subject to executory limitation" because the word "absolute" necessarily means that the interest is not subject to an executory limitation. Right? I would love for someone to tell me I'm wrong about this.

[Kilpatrick]

I'm not 100% sure. But I think there's at least a chance that you're fine putting FSA. Hopefully somebody else comes along who knows more about property than me.

[TCScrutinizer]

In my class, "vested subject to (complete) divestment" and "vested subject to executory limitation" were synonymous. Saying "on executory limitation subject to divestment" seems to me to be redundant.

And yeah, saying FSA was incorrect. It's not a fee simple absolute if it's subject to an executory limitation. It's a fee simple defeasible. "Fee simple subject to..." would have been correct. "Fee simple absolute subject to..." is not. It's not absolute if it's subject to something.

[Chupavida]

.

[Kilpatrick]

Oh well I'm done with property, I don't really care. Although what you said is exactly what Helmholtz said and what I said except I mixed up contingent/vested so I'm not sure where the 'lots of wrong' comes from.

[Chupavida]

.

[Kilpatrick]

This isn't an exam

[Chupavida]

.

[Kilpatrick]

The point was Helmholtz was not wrong and I was not wrong in telling the OP that his answer was wrong. (I was just mistaken in what the right answer would be. But I'm just posting on a message board not taking an exam. If it was an exam I would've been more careful.)

And OP said he wrote C has a shifting executory interest in FSA. That is correct. That is the same thing as saying FS. That is what I was referring to when I told him he would be fine.