Property Q Forum

[TurkeyDay]

O, unmarried, wants to give Blackacre, which he owns, to his brother A after O
dies. However, O wants to retain the power to sell and use Blackacre as he
desires during his life. Under modern law which of the following courses of
action should O adopt now to accomplish his intent?

(1) A provision in O's will giving Blackacre to A.
(2) A deed from O to O for life with remainder in A.
(3) A deed from O to O and A, his brother.
(4) All of the above.
(5) None of the above

[ph14]

O, unmarried, wants to give Blackacre, which he owns, to his brother A after O
dies. However, O wants to retain the power to sell and use Blackacre as he
desires during his life. Under modern law which of the following courses of
action should O adopt now to accomplish his intent?

(1) A provision in O's will giving Blackacre to A.
(2) A deed from O to O for life with remainder in A.
(3) A deed from O to O and A, his brother.
(4) All of the above.
(5) None of the above

I'd think (1).

Can you even deed something to yourself?

[TurkeyDay]

I wasn't sure... but doesn't that not give him the option to sell, etc.?

If he sells Blackacre, it wouldn't be his property to bequest...?

[gdane]

What does he own? Fee simple? If so, common sense says that he should just leave it to a in his will. I say common sense bc I'm not sure if there an actual rule. Lol.

3 looks like it would create a co tenancy.

[AlexanderSupertramp]

What does he own? Fee simple? If so, common sense says that he should just leave it to a in his will. I say common sense bc I'm not sure if there an actual rule. Lol.

That's what I was thinking. I'm glad you said it because it was distracting me from studying my own property materials!

[TurkeyDay]

What about (2); then O uses it how he wants to FOR LIFE, and after he dies it goes to his brother.

[ph14]

What about (2); then O uses it how he wants to FOR LIFE, and after he dies it goes to his brother.

This is weird. Normally, the grantor retains a reversion, to a life estate though. And I think if he died without a will it would go to his heirs, which could be any kids he has, or a wife if he gets married.

Not sure how that works when the grantor is granting a life estate in himself.

[TurkeyDay]

What about (2); then O uses it how he wants to FOR LIFE, and after he dies it goes to his brother.

This is weird. Normally, the grantor retains a reversion, to a life estate though. And I think if he died without a will it would go to his heirs, which could be any kids he has, or a wife if he gets married.

Not sure how that works when the grantor is granting a life estate in himself.

Welcome to my multiple choice property exam.

[ph14]

What about (2); then O uses it how he wants to FOR LIFE, and after he dies it goes to his brother.

This is weird. Normally, the grantor retains a reversion, to a life estate though. And I think if he died without a will it would go to his heirs, which could be any kids he has, or a wife if he gets married.

Not sure how that works when the grantor is granting a life estate in himself.

Welcome to my multiple choice property exam.

Shitty man. I've heard Glannon's Guide is good for multiple choice property exams.

Knocking out (3), also knocks out (4), so on the bright side now you just go to figure out (1), (2), and (5).

[ph14]

What about (2); then O uses it how he wants to FOR LIFE, and after he dies it goes to his brother.

This is weird. Normally, the grantor retains a reversion, to a life estate though. And I think if he died without a will it would go to his heirs, which could be any kids he has, or a wife if he gets married.

Not sure how that works when the grantor is granting a life estate in himself.

Welcome to my multiple choice property exam.

Wait, i'm not sure if what I said is accurate. The question said he granted a remainder to his brother. So I don't think the grantor would retain a reversion.

But if O now owns a life estate (even assuming you can deed to yourself a life estate), then I think he might be limited on how he uses the property, since there is a future interest holder. He might have a duty to take care of the land or something, let me look at my notes.

[ph14]

What about (2); then O uses it how he wants to FOR LIFE, and after he dies it goes to his brother.

This is weird. Normally, the grantor retains a reversion, to a life estate though. And I think if he died without a will it would go to his heirs, which could be any kids he has, or a wife if he gets married.

Not sure how that works when the grantor is granting a life estate in himself.

Well... if O conveyed to O for life, then to A, then it's executory, with A having an executory interest in a FSA. Technically, O could sell his life estate, but he can sell no more than he has.. meaning all he could sell was his life estate... And, it would still be pur autre vie on O.. so it would last only as long as O was alive. Doesn't seem to accomplish O's goals. And, the person with a life estate also has a duty not to waste, so this would also limit what O could do on the land - again seemingly contrary to his intent.

Wouldn't A have a vested remainder in fee simple?

[ph14]

This is weird. Normally, the grantor retains a reversion, to a life estate though. And I think if he died without a will it would go to his heirs, which could be any kids he has, or a wife if he gets married.

Not sure how that works when the grantor is granting a life estate in himself.

Well... if O conveyed to O for life, then to A, then it's executory, with A having an executory interest in a FSA. Technically, O could sell his life estate, but he can sell no more than he has.. meaning all he could sell was his life estate... And, it would still be pur autre vie on O.. so it would last only as long as O was alive. Doesn't seem to accomplish O's goals. And, the person with a life estate also has a duty not to waste, so this would also limit what O could do on the land - again seemingly contrary to his intent.

Wouldn't A have a vested remainder in fee simple?

You know.. good question.. it's been a few years. Just looking at the O to O for life... the estate has to be accounted for through the end of time... so there does have to be a reversion to someone... you know what, maybe you are right. there is a remainder, not a reversion. If it was just O to O for life, then there would be a reversion that would technically be to O's heirs by intestate succession. O to O for life, then to A would be a vested remainder.. yeah.. you're right. I got caught up thinking there was some third party (counting O, and then some weird ghost reversion holder)

No worries, I get caught up all the time on property technicalities as well. Thanks for the help though. I agree with your reasoning on why (1) is correct.