F**k the Rule Against Perpetuities! Forum

[DeSimone]

... that is all

[Cupidity]

As long as you aren't fucking too remotely,

+1

[missinglink]

We spent a day on the RAP and it won't be on our final.

[Headybrah]

anyone know where I can get some good RAP practice problems with multiple and complex conveyances? Are there any good supplements?

1/2 my final is a complex set of conveyances where I need to apply the RAP...

[Omerta]

anyone know where I can get some good RAP practice problems with multiple and complex conveyances? Are there any good supplements?

1/2 my final is a complex set of conveyances where I need to apply the RAP...

I bought this book and worked through most of it already. http://www.amazon.com/Estates-Land-Futu ... 147&sr=1-1

Be careful because your professor may include or exclude some of the stuff in the book. Altogether, it's an almost annoyingly thorough recap of a subject, which is how I like my supplements.

IMO this whole easement, servitudes, covenants business is way more tricky than RAP.

[DeSimone]

anyone know where I can get some good RAP practice problems with multiple and complex conveyances? Are there any good supplements?

1/2 my final is a complex set of conveyances where I need to apply the RAP...

also, more suggestions here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=147420

[sullidop]

"Of the California law on perpetuities and restraints it has been said that few, if any, areas of the law have been fraught with more confusion or concealed more traps for the unwary draftsman; that members of the bar, probate courts, and title insurance companies make errors in these matters...n view of the state of the law relating to perpetuities and restraints on alienation and the nature of the error, if any, assertedly made by defendant in preparing the instrument, it would not be proper to hold that defendant failed to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly exercise." 56 Cal.2d 592

If only this was still good law.

[danquayle]

best law of all.

[savagedm]

Here's a shortcut that has helped me immensely: line up all the named parties (i.e. to B) and all the unascertainable parties (to B's children) then see if they can possibly have the interest vested within 21 years after the named parties die... if so, then in a modern Jx. then it is still good based on the wait and see approach. Under common law, it MUST vest, there can be no wiggle room.

[soaponarope]

Here's a shortcut that has helped me immensely: line up all the named parties (i.e. to B) and all the unascertainable parties (to B's children) then see if they can possibly have the interest vested within 21 years after the named parties die... if so, then in a modern Jx. then it is still good based on the wait and see approach. Under common law, it MUST vest, there can be no wiggle room.

It doesn't have to vest... it can also "fail" to vest w/in the 21 yrd period and be a valid interest. The rule is: no interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 yrs after blah blah blah. Which means: an interest is invalid unless it can be said with absolute certainty, that it will either vest or fail to vest before the 21 yr period runs.

If you are certain the interest will fail to vest within 21 yrs, it will not violate the RAP, however, it will violate the contingency (but that is not the issue in RAP).

[savagedm]

Here's a shortcut that has helped me immensely: line up all the named parties (i.e. to B) and all the unascertainable parties (to B's children) then see if they can possibly have the interest vested within 21 years after the named parties die... if so, then in a modern Jx. then it is still good based on the wait and see approach. Under common law, it MUST vest, there can be no wiggle room.

It doesn't have to vest... it can also "fail" to vest w/in the 21 yrd period and be a valid interest. The rule is: no interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 yrs after blah blah blah. Which means: an interest is invalid unless it can be said with absolute certainty, that it will either vest or fail to vest before the 21 yr period runs.

If you are certain the interest will fail to vest within 21 yrs, it will not violate the RAP, however, it will violate the contingency (but that is not the issue in RAP).

Yeah that's kind of what I was trying to say but I'm home for the break and a little hung over >< thanks for clarifying haha

[PitchO20]

I really lucked out. The RAP isn't being covered in my property course this semester. We don't cover it until Wills and Trusts. Probably detrimental to my legal education, but I don't care. That shit looks rough.

[blerg]

Here's a shortcut that has helped me immensely: line up all the named parties (i.e. to B) and all the unascertainable parties (to B's children) then see if they can possibly have the interest vested within 21 years after the named parties die... if so, then in a modern Jx. then it is still good based on the wait and see approach. Under common law, it MUST vest, there can be no wiggle room.

It doesn't have to vest... it can also "fail" to vest w/in the 21 yrd period and be a valid interest. The rule is: no interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 yrs after blah blah blah. Which means: an interest is invalid unless it can be said with absolute certainty, that it will either vest or fail to vest before the 21 yr period runs.

If you are certain the interest will fail to vest within 21 yrs, it will not violate the RAP, however, it will violate the contingency (but that is not the issue in RAP).

This is what our prof. taught us. Except her words were "kill everyone off. Did it vest or fail? yes, fine. No, it violates the rule"

[YourCaptain]

This is what our prof. taught us. Except her words were "kill everyone off. Did it vest or fail? yes, fine. No, it violates the rule"

This is the key to working through a RAP problem, not even kidding.

[DeSimone]

This is what our prof. taught us. Except her words were "kill everyone off. Did it vest or fail? yes, fine. No, it violates the rule"

This is the key to working through a RAP problem, not even kidding.

At what point exactly do you kill everyone? Sorry, too burnt out to think right now.

O to A for life, then to A’s children for life, then to A’s grandchildren who survive their parents.

[YourCaptain]

This is what our prof. taught us. Except her words were "kill everyone off. Did it vest or fail? yes, fine. No, it violates the rule"

This is the key to working through a RAP problem, not even kidding.

At what point exactly do you kill everyone? Sorry, too burned out to think right now.

O to A for life, then to A’s children for life, then to A’s grandchildren who survive their parents.

You didn't specify who's alive, so I'm assuming only A is alive.

O dies, A activates. For kicks, A impregnates B, A suffers heart attack, dies, measuring life (A's) extinguished. Now 21 years in play.

Will we know in 21 years if A's grandchildren survive A's children? Maybe, maybe not.

At A's death, even if A didn't have children, we'd know who they were; A's death seals the door, so to speak, so he's either got them or he doesn't, so (I'm fairly sure) they're ok.

Someone please correct if I'm off.


edit - for purposes of the hypo, it becomes A to life, A's Cs to life, reverts to O after A's C's death.

[lawgod]

It is quite easy.

Day one- the grant.

Day 2- afterborn child who can get the grant.

Day 3- kill everyone alive on day 1.

If we will know within 21 years whether it will vest, it is fine.

[blerg]

This is what our prof. taught us. Except her words were "kill everyone off. Did it vest or fail? yes, fine. No, it violates the rule"

This is the key to working through a RAP problem, not even kidding.

At what point exactly do you kill everyone? Sorry, too burnt out to think right now.

O to A for life, then to A’s children for life, then to A’s grandchildren who survive their parents.

She told us to use named people in the conveyance. So A is the only named person. When A dies, is it certain that it will vest/fail in A's grandkids in 21 years? No.

If it was O to A for life, then to A's son B for life and then to his children. Kill A and B at the same time. Will it vest/fail in B's kids? Yes.

[DeSimone]

Thanks guys. That's pretty much how I've been doing it. Maybe without picturing myself shooting people in the faces. That's why it was so boring.

[blerg]

Thanks guys. That's pretty much how I've been doing it. Maybe without picturing myself shooting people in the faces. That's why it was so boring.

It gets better when your prof kills off your classmates in a problem. Honestly, prop. has been riveting lately.

[roofles]

As long as you aren't fucking too remotely,

+1

The first thing I thought when I read your post was "Well, when does the fucking vest?"

Spring break could not possibly come at a better time.

edit - replied to the wrong post, my bad

[solotee]

RAP anecdote:

On one of my call backs, a partner asked me what the RAP was. I am so glad my professor made us memorize the rule.

Needless to say, got an offer on the spot.

Lesson: memorize the RAP!

[TCScrutinizer]

RAP anecdote:

On one of my call backs, a partner asked me what the RAP was. I am so glad my professor made us memorize the rule.

Needless to say, got an offer on the spot.

Lesson: memorize the RAP!

"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest" got you a job?

Damn.

And if the RAP is hard, I clearly need to pursue property law as a career path.

[Renzo]

RAP anecdote:

On one of my call backs, a partner asked me what the RAP was. I am so glad my professor made us memorize the rule.

Needless to say, got an offer on the spot.

Lesson: memorize the RAP!

"No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest" got you a job?

Damn.

And if the RAP is hard, I clearly need to pursue property law as a career path.

The RAP is so hard that it's not malpractice in California for a lawyer to screw it up. If you didn't think it was hard, then you were being fed softball questions.

[fatduck]

fuck it forever and ever