Another Property Q Forum

[TurkeyDay]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..

[target]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..

If B is not living, B's heirs have vested remainder. No executory interest here since there's no divestment of A's interest.

Also, If B's living, and have at least one child, it would be vested remainder subject to open. If B is living and currently has no children, then contingent remainder.

[03121202698008]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..

If B is not living, B's heirs have vested remainder. No executory interest here since there's no divestment of A's interest.

Also, If B's living, and have at least one child, it would be vested remainder subject to open. If B is living and currently has no children, then contingent remainder.

It can't be vested because you don't have heirs until you die. It's an EI. It is divesting the original grantor to whom it will revert until B dies and has heirs. If B is still alive, you have no way to know who is heirs will be. Not all heirs are children. If no kids spouse, no spouse then parents.

If it said children. You'd be correct.

[target]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..

If B is not living, B's heirs have vested remainder. No executory interest here since there's no divestment of A's interest.

Also, If B's living, and have at least one child, it would be vested remainder subject to open. If B is living and currently has no children, then contingent remainder.

It can't be vested because you don't have heirs until you die. It's an EI. It is divesting the original grantor to whom it will revert until B dies and has heirs.

My bad. I misread heirs as children.

[TurkeyDay]

So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?

[03121202698008]

So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?

Once again, there are no heirs if you're alive. Remainders are only in existing identifiable people. Just because B has children now, doesnt mean they will outlive him. The first two are both EIs. The last is correct.

[target]

So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?

Once again, there are no heirs if you're alive. Remainders are only in existing identifiable people. Just because B has children now, doesnt mean they will outlive him. The first two are both EIs. The last is correct.

I thought contingent remainder can be vested in unborn/unascertained people, no? Contingent remainder and shifting EI always confuse me. Is there a good way to distinguish the two?

[03121202698008]

So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?

Once again, there are no heirs if you're alive. Remainders are only in existing identifiable people. Just because B has children now, doesnt mean they will outlive him. The first two are both EIs. The last is correct.

I thought contingent remainder can be vested in unborn/unascertained people, no? Contingent remainder and shifting EI always confuse me. Is there a good way to distinguish the two?

True, been awhile. The children definitely have an EI because it's not clear they'd outlive B. I'd say an EI for both because a remainder has to be capable of taking upon expiration of the estate. If A dies before B, his heirs don't exist and can't take.

A contingent remainder is like "A to B if B lives to 21."
But in your hypo, If A dies and B lives his kids can't take yet because they aren't heirs.

[BeaverHunter]

If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).

[BeaverHunter]

So, if B is alive with no heirs; heirs have a contingent remainder.
if B is alive with children; they have a shifting executory interest.
If B is dies within A's lifetime, the heirs have a vested remainder.

?

You're doing this wrong. They don't have different things depending on all the different outcomes. Simplify. Also no executory interests here.

[03121202698008]

If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).

It can't be a remainder because it cannot necessarily pass when A dies. It has to be an EI. If B is alive, there is a reversion as you point out. A remainder cannot follow a reversion.

Nor is it contingent. For it to be a contingency, the estate wouldn't pass at all if A didn't outlive B. E.g. A to B's heirs if B outlives A. That's not what happens here. If A dies and B is alive, it passes to O until B dies, then to his heirs. It will take no matter what, just not necessarily when A dies.

[BeaverHunter]

If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).

It can't be a remainder because it cannot necessarily pass when A dies. It has to be an EI. If B is alive, there is a reversion as you point out. A remainder cannot follow a reversion.

Yeah, that's why it is a contingent remainder. If B outlives A B's heirs have nothing.

[03121202698008]

If B is living then he doesn't have heirs. You'd have a reversion. B's heirs have a contingent remainder (contingency being A outliving B).

It can't be a remainder because it cannot necessarily pass when A dies. It has to be an EI. If B is alive, there is a reversion as you point out. A remainder cannot follow a reversion.

Yeah, that's why it is a contingent remainder. If B outlives A B's heirs have nothing.

That's not what his hypo says. That would be A to B's heirs if A outlives B. This estate will pass to B's heirs whenever B dies. Whether that is right when A dies or after a reversion to O. A remainder cannot follow a reversion. This is an exact example from the handout we got in property last year...a class I did well in FWIW.


• O to A for life, remainder to the heirs of B.
 B would have fee simple, A life estate.
 B has nothing…if he is alive when A dies, reversion to grantor (or his heirs) until B dies and has heirs. (No heirs until dead.) Though irrevocable by grantor…
B's heirs have an EI.

[AlexanderSupertramp]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with a condition precedent and/or no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.

[03121202698008]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with no condition precedent and no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.

Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

Edit: A quick google shows examples of this going each way. I guess go with what you were taught. We were taught a remainder cannot follow a reversion and this was a specific example provided for EI. I get that the heirs are unascertained. My problem is though that this may not take upon the natural termination of the estate.

[bk1]

Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?

[AlexanderSupertramp]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with no condition precedent and no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.

Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

No, they wouldn't the reversion follows the CR in case in doesn't vest.
Check out #3
http://www.donaldjkochan.com/classes/pr ... oblems.pdf

Check out #6 and #8
http://www.law.uidaho.edu/documents/Fut ... 5528&doc=1

[03121202698008]

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B's heirs."

If B is living, B's heirs have a contingent remainder.
Yes. A coningent remainder is one with no condition precedent and no ascertainable remainderman. Since the heirs can not be ascertained because you can't know who the heris are til B dies. Unless you're in NC in which case it is madated by statute that any time a conveying instrument transfers an interet in real property to the heirs of any living person you change the word "heirs" to "children" - as far as I know this does not apply anywhere else in the world. Either way, though, you would leave a reversion in O. You can do that with a contingent remainder.
If B is not living, B's heirs have what?
IVR. Technically, it could be VRSTO if he has just died because there could still be another born within ten lunar months.

EDIT: I think they have a vested remainder, but I get confused about executory interests..
An EI would cut short someone else's interest. Remainders don't do that.

Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

No, they wouldn't the reversion follows the CR in case in doesn't vest.
Check out #3
http://www.donaldjkochan.com/classes/pr ... oblems.pdf

Check out #6 and #8
http://www.law.uidaho.edu/documents/Fut ... 5528&doc=1

3 says children. You may die without children. Everyone has heirs (or the state acts as an heir). 6/8 are conditions subsequent/precedent and entirely different.

[AlexanderSupertramp]

I was trying to illustrate that a reverison in the grantor may follow a CR and that the CR doesn't cut it off.

[03121202698008]

I was trying to illustrate that a reverison in the grantor may follow a CR and that the CR doesn't cut it off.

None of those say that. There, it is possible none of those conditions could ever be met. If they all failed, it would revert to O. But B will always have heirs at some point.

[03121202698008]

Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?

Why wouldn't it? There isn't a condition...it doesn't say to B's heirs if A outlives B. It creates a future irrevocable property interest in B's heirs, whoever they may be.

[BeaverHunter]

Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?

You are correct. The interest in B's heirs terminates if that class is not ascertained at A's death (which would be the case if B outlives A).

This is an easy problem. A has a life estate, heirs of B have a contingent remainder, O has a reversion. Anyone with an upcoming property exam that doesn't get this is in for a rough day.

[03121202698008]

Dude, read what you wrote. B's heirs would be cutting short O's reversion. Remainders cannot follow a reversion. It cannot be a contingent remainder for the very reason you wrote. It may not take right when A dies. A contingent remainder must either take or fail when A dies.

Why does the future interest in B's heirs not just terminate at A's death when it checks for B's heirs, sees that B is alive and has no heirs, and thus fails to vest in anyone (thus moving on to the reversion in O in FSA)? Why does it keep waiting until B's heirs are ascertained even if A's life estate has ended?

You are correct. The interest in B's heirs terminates if that class is not ascertained at A's death (which would be the case if B outlives A).

This is an easy problem. A has a life estate, heirs of B have a contingent remainder, O has a reversion. Anyone with an upcoming property exam that doesn't get this is in for a rough day.

It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.

[bk1]

It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.

My property supplement calls it a contingent remainder (it doesn't really elaborate on it) but I see how it could be looked at your way. I guess it might depend on how the prof teaches the course.

[03121202698008]

It's entirely possible you're correct because it's been a long time. But, do you have a source for the interest terminating if the class is unascertained at death? That sounds kind of right now that you say that...but I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: I give up...you guys can fight it out. I'm going back to tax/secured trans. I don't even know why they ask...under modern law there is no damn distinction anyhow.

My property supplement calls it a contingent remainder (it doesn't really elaborate on it) but I see how it could be looked at your way. I guess it might depend on how the prof teaches the course.

Yeah, like I said it doesn't even matter anymore so who knows why/how everyone teaches it. In reality it makes no difference whatsoever. I do now recall reading somewhere that the class closes at death (which it obv does for other purposes like which children get) which would make it fail altogether and revert. I don't know why but I was thinking it created an interest in the heirs that would eventually take.