Property: Future Interests Question -- HALP! Forum

[tamlyric]

What (if any) future interest does O have in the following example?

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Suppose that B wins the Book Award and that B has no children.

HALP! Kthx.

[uwb09]

depends, what is being conveyed? (life estate or fee simple)

if a fee simple absolute, then I don't think O has anything, he's conveyed away his entire interest in the property
if only getting a life estate, then O has a reversion

[ogurty]

If it were a life estate, I think it would have said so.

The interesting part of this question is what happens when property is purportedly conveyed, in FSA, to a class with no current live members. You can't really say that it's conveyed to B's children's heirs because, again, they aren't born yet! I think the most reasonable conclusion is that B's children have an executory interest in the property, and O has fee simple subject to an executory limitation (any child of B being born). So, at the time of conveyance, A had fee simple subject to an executory limitation, B's children had an executory interest in fee simple absolute, and O had a reversion in fee simple subject to an executory limitation. (I think!)

[BarbellDreams]

I dont think O has anything. Seems to me like A has Fee Simple subject to condition subsequent and B's kids (at the time after B already won) have a contigent remainder (contingency being they actually need to be born).

[ogurty]

I dont think O has anything. Seems to me like A has Fee Simple subject to condition subsequent and B's kids (at the time after B already won) have a contigent remainder (contingency being they actually need to be born).

That's the other reasonable conclusion, I think. Only thing is B's kids can't have a remainder because there's no life estate or stated term.

[tamlyric]

Here's what I've been thinking:

1. A has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation
2. B's kids have a shifting executory interest in fee simple subject to open

And O has . . . a reversion. I don't think it can be a 'right of entry' or a 'possibility of reverter,' so it's either nada or a reversion. Is there any reason why it can't be a reversion? Why would it go to the state instead of the original owner in this instance?

[uwb09]

Here's what I've been thinking:

1. A has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation
2. B's kids have a shifting executory interest in fee simple subject to open

And O has . . . a reversion. I don't think it can be a 'right of entry' or a 'possibility of reverter,' so it's either nada or a reversion. Is there any reason why it can't be a reversion? Why would it go to the state instead of the original owner in this instance?

assuming O has a fee simple, the only way he can have a reversion is if he conveys a life estate or a fee tail

[quiver]

I think the most reasonable conclusion is that B's children have an executory interest in the property, and O has fee simple subject to an executory limitation (any child of B being born)

Pretty sure this is right. There aren't any contingent remainders because the interests in question are all fee simples; therefore they must be "cut short" if the interest is to be transfered. It seems that O is basically holding the property now (as ogurty said) subject to B having any children (the executory interest).

Edited to add an example:

O to A for life, then to B if B graduates from med school [A dies and B has not graduated from med school]
O here is holding a fee simple subject to the executory limitation of B graduating from med school because of the "gap" in interests.
In the example we're talking about, it's basically the same, only that A has a fee instead of a life estate. But A's interest was already divested by B winning the award so now O is holding the fee in this "gap" period until B has a child.

[quakeroats]

What (if any) future interest does O have in the following example?

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Suppose that B wins the Book Award and that B has no children.

HALP! Kthx.

O has no future interest even if the RAP strikes the children's interests.

--LinkRemoved--

[quakeroats]

I think the most reasonable conclusion is that B's children have an executory interest in the property, and O has fee simple subject to an executory limitation (any child of B being born)

Pretty sure this is right. There aren't any contingent remainders because the interests in question are all fee simples; therefore they must be "cut short" if the interest is to be transfered. It seems that O is basically holding the property now (as ogurty said) subject to B having any children (the executory interest).

Nope. The language of the grant prevents it:

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

This reduces to O to A. Had the language been unless B wins... rather than but if B wins it would be different. The but if part becomes meaningless sentence fragment without the final clause and is therefore struck as well.

[quiver]

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Why are you striking that part? It seems fine under RAP since B is the validating life. I don't get what you're saying. If you strike the kid's interest I completely agree that it just becomes a fee simple in A, but I don't see any reason to strike it.

[BarbellDreams]

Not sure how B's kids have an executory interest if they are not born at the time the property is conveyed. I always thought that if the party is unascertainable, as it is here, it HAS to be a contingent remainder.

[03121202698008]

What (if any) future interest does O have in the following example?

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Suppose that B wins the Book Award and that B has no children.

HALP! Kthx.

A has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
B's children have a shifting executory interest. (Cannot be a contingent remainder because divesting A.)
It's ambiguous what would happen in the given scenario. I'd think there would be a jurisdictional split. Since public policy is against foreifitures, it probably stays with A. B having children is kind of an inherent limitation in the grant. Now, if B has children after winning the book award, does it vest then? I'd guess yes.

[03121202698008]

Not sure how B's kids have an executory interest if they are not born at the time the property is conveyed. I always thought that if the party is unascertainable, as it is here, it HAS to be a contingent remainder.

It cannot be a remainder if it divests another. Remainders wait until the preceding estate ends. If the grant was "O to A until B wins the Book Award, then to B's children", they'd have a contingent remainder as A's estate ends upon the condition happening.

If you look in the Gilbret property supplement, there are several examples where unborn children have EIs.

[quakeroats]

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Why are you striking that part? It seems fine under RAP since B is the validating life. I don't get what you're saying. If you strike the kid's interest I completely agree that it just becomes a fee simple in A, but I don't see any reason to strike it.

I agree that it's fine under the RAP, I'm just saying that's the only conceivable way O has a future interest and even if the RAP applied O still has no future interest as I put forward.

[03121202698008]

"O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children."

Why are you striking that part? It seems fine under RAP since B is the validating life. I don't get what you're saying. If you strike the kid's interest I completely agree that it just becomes a fee simple in A, but I don't see any reason to strike it.

Agreed, RAP is not an issue since B presumably has to win in his lifetime. Although, if he can win for a book he wrote during his lifetime after he has died, then it could violate the RAP. I guess you'd have to know the rules behind the book award. Because, B's children could not be born yet, then B has them, then he dies, then 50 years later he wins the award.

Also, you'd strike to the "but", not the gift over as that's the part failing RAP. O to A, but if B wins the Book Award in property, then to B's children.

Edit: Is this an award for booking the class? Or an award for an actual book written on property?

[quiver]

Edited to add an example:

O to A for life, then to B if B graduates from med school [A dies and B has not graduated from med school]
O here is holding a fee simple subject to the executory limitation of B graduating from med school because of the "gap" in interests.
In the example we're talking about, it's basically the same, only that A has a fee instead of a life estate. But A's interest was already divested by B winning the award so now O is holding the fee in this "gap" period until B has a child.

I still think O is currently holding a fee simple subject to an executory interest (B having a child) as seen in the example here.

Edit: the problem we're discussing is the only time I've ever seen a "gap" when a fee simple is conveyed. blowhard may be correct that there is a jurisdiction split on this issue since O did technically convey his/her entire interest when s/he gave a fee simple

[quakeroats]

Edited to add an example:

O to A for life, then to B if B graduates from med school [A dies and B has not graduated from med school]
O here is holding a fee simple subject to the executory limitation of B graduating from med school because of the "gap" in interests.
In the example we're talking about, it's basically the same, only that A has a fee instead of a life estate. But A's interest was already divested by B winning the award so now O is holding the fee in this "gap" period until B has a child.

I still think O is currently holding a fee simple subject to an executory interest (B having a child) as seen in the example here.

That's what A has, O has nothing.

[03121202698008]

Edited to add an example:

O to A for life, then to B if B graduates from med school [A dies and B has not graduated from med school]
O here is holding a fee simple subject to the executory limitation of B graduating from med school because of the "gap" in interests.
In the example we're talking about, it's basically the same, only that A has a fee instead of a life estate. But A's interest was already divested by B winning the award so now O is holding the fee in this "gap" period until B has a child.

I still think O is currently holding a fee simple subject to an executory interest (B having a child) as seen in the example here.

It's very weird to say it that way because you classify interests as upon the grant. So, in your example, O has a reversion during the gap. The way your describing it is what he'd have during that grant...but you don't classify that way at the time of the grant.

Also your example is completely different because its only vesting in B if the condition is met. Here, A is taking a possesory interest in an estate that doesn't end like a life estate does. Then if the condition occurs he's divested. The commas are important.



O to A for life (estate ends), then to B if
is not the same as
O to A, but if... (reaches in and divests)

[quiver]

Yeah I see what you guys are saying:

Edit: the problem we're discussing is the only time I've ever seen a "gap" when a fee simple is conveyed. blowhard may be correct that there is a jurisdiction split on this issue since O did technically convey his/her entire interest when s/he gave a fee simple

[FireNextTime]

I'm not entirely sure how all the rest plays out, since my class kind of bastardized this stuff. But ...

Under the old rule, O has not conveyed anything other than a life estate. The old-schoolers required that O's grant state "to A and his heirs" to transfer in Fee Simple. Obviously most, if not all, jurisdictions have abandoned this silliness.

In any case, in my class, I know for sure the proper way to have handled this was to analyze it both as a grant of a life estate and a fee simple transfer. Unless it's multiple choice. In which case, I quit. Property was last week anyway.

[03121202698008]

I'm not entirely sure how all the rest plays out, since my class kind of bastardized this stuff. But ...

Under the old rule, O has not conveyed anything other than a life estate. The old-schoolers required that O's grant state "to A and his heirs" to transfer in Fee Simple. Obviously most, if not all, jurisdictions have abandoned this silliness.

In any case, in my class, I know for sure the proper way to have handled this was to analyze it both as a grant of a life estate and a fee simple transfer. Unless it's multiple choice. In which case, I quit. Property was last week anyway.

I agree for the analysis if given room. Also, all J's have abandoned the "and his heirs" requirement according to our casebook. The presumption is you gave the largest estate you had to give. It wasn't even really a CL requirement...according the supplement it was an "ancient" requirement.

[quakeroats]

I'm not entirely sure how all the rest plays out, since my class kind of bastardized this stuff. But ...

Under the old rule, O has not conveyed anything other than a life estate. The old-schoolers required that O's grant state "to A and his heirs" to transfer in Fee Simple. Obviously most, if not all, jurisdictions have abandoned this silliness.

In any case, in my class, I know for sure the proper way to have handled this was to analyze it both as a grant of a life estate and a fee simple transfer. Unless it's multiple choice. In which case, I quit. Property was last week anyway.

I agree for the analysis if given room. Also, all J's have abandoned the "and his heirs" requirement according to our casebook. The presumption is you gave the largest estate you had to give. It wasn't even really a CL requirement...according the supplement it was an "ancient" requirement.

They've abandoned quite a bit more than that. Most (read: nearly all) of a typical 1L property class is irrelevant to modern practice. While some professors manage to work in modern concerns, estates in land/real convenants/etc. are easier to test.

Here's a real property exam from the 1870s. Notice anything familiar?

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/179 ... mbnails=no

[03121202698008]

I'm not entirely sure how all the rest plays out, since my class kind of bastardized this stuff. But ...

Under the old rule, O has not conveyed anything other than a life estate. The old-schoolers required that O's grant state "to A and his heirs" to transfer in Fee Simple. Obviously most, if not all, jurisdictions have abandoned this silliness.

In any case, in my class, I know for sure the proper way to have handled this was to analyze it both as a grant of a life estate and a fee simple transfer. Unless it's multiple choice. In which case, I quit. Property was last week anyway.

I agree for the analysis if given room. Also, all J's have abandoned the "and his heirs" requirement according to our casebook. The presumption is you gave the largest estate you had to give. It wasn't even really a CL requirement...according the supplement it was an "ancient" requirement.

They've abandoned quite a bit more than that. Most (read: nearly all) of a typical 1L property class is irrelevant to modern practice. While some professors manage to work in modern concerns, estates in land/real convenants/etc. are easier to test.

Here's a real property exam from the 1870s. Notice anything familiar?

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/179 ... mbnails=no

Not as much as you'd think. My mom owns an abstracting company. I do title searches for spare $ for her. While FSA is the most common for sure, you do see crazy ass one-line grants from recent times. Though, most times there is additional information about their intent which helps.

Also, the whole judgments attaching to TBE, but if federal tax, etc...actually comes up all the time.

Plus, easements etc being prescripted happens all the time...so title insurance binders have to be issued to cover if neighbor files quiet title.

[ogurty]

The answer is anything but clear. This grant lends itself to two reasonable interpretations. One is that A's give is subject to TWO executory limitations, BOTH of which must be satisfied before he's divested (the kids being born, and B murdering a property exam). But a court could just as easily say that a grant "To A, but if (x) then to (y)" divests A as soon as (x) happens. This is the standard operation of executory interests. If the gift to (y) is subject to its own condition precedent, that inherently creates a reversion in O.

The point is, if you took this problem and said "Well, it's not a life estate so O can't have a reversion" or "future interests in unborn people must be contingent remainders" or "O purportly granted fee simple so he can't have a future interest" you probably wouldn't get the most points possible. There's a reason that hornbooks say no new type of future interest can be created - lots of future interests don't fit easily into the common rules.