Property Law Question Forum

[BeaverHunter]

That's what I was hoping for, just got out of an exam and either missed a lot of stuff on one of the big essay issue spotters or did pretty solidly, trying to confirm which. One more question...

Ex.
Father = A
Son #1 = B
Son #2 = C
Conveyance occurs through execution of A's will aka A just died.

A to B, but if B marries someone that isn't (insert religion here), then to C's grandchildren

After conveyance to B, he marries someone that isn't (insert religion here).

1) Traditional states - Class gift at end invalid because of RAP? Causes a fee simply absolute in B?
2) "wait and see" states - Just have to wait and see if class vests/closes?

Also, would it change it anything if you made C the brother of A, rather than the brother of B?

Where is the RAP issue? B is a life in being at the time of the conveyance. If he does marry someone that isn't (insert religion here), it will be by the time he dies.

If A's still alive:
A has reversion. B has vested remainder subject to complete divestment. C's grandchildren will have shifting executory interest. I guess RAP may not apply since if B does not marry someone that isn't [religion] and C's grandchildren do not exist, then the interest reverts back to A.

If A is dead:
B has vested remainder subject to complete divestment. C's grandchildren will have shifting executory interest. RAP applies in this case since at the moment B marries someone who is not [religion], C's grandchildren, who may not exist, have interest in the land.

Not so sure about that. A is dead. This is a will. B has fee simple subject to executory interest. The condition vesting C's grandchildrens interest will happen by B's death, if at all. B is a life in being. No RAP.

[03121202698008]

That's what I was hoping for, just got out of an exam and either missed a lot of stuff on one of the big essay issue spotters or did pretty solidly, trying to confirm which. One more question...

Ex.
Father = A
Son #1 = B
Son #2 = C
Conveyance occurs through execution of A's will aka A just died.

A to B, but if B marries someone that isn't (insert religion here), then to C's grandchildren

After conveyance to B, he marries someone that isn't (insert religion here).

1) Traditional states - Class gift at end invalid because of RAP? Causes a fee simply absolute in B?
2) "wait and see" states - Just have to wait and see if class vests/closes?

Also, would it change it anything if you made C the brother of A, rather than the brother of B?

Where is the RAP issue? B is a life in being at the time of the conveyance. If he does marry someone that isn't (insert religion here), it will be by the time he dies.

If A's still alive:
A has reversion. B has vested remainder subject to complete divestment. C's grandchildren will have shifting executory interest. I guess RAP may not apply since if B does not marry someone that isn't [religion] and C's grandchildren do not exist, then the interest reverts back to A.

If A is dead:
B has vested remainder subject to complete divestment. C's grandchildren will have shifting executory interest. RAP applies in this case since at the moment B marries someone who is not [religion], C's grandchildren, who may not exist, have interest in the land.

Not so sure about that. A is dead. This is a will. B has fee simple subject to executory interest. The condition vesting C's grandchildrens interest will happen by B's death, if at all. B is a life in being. No RAP.

Your reading that wrong. It only vests in C if B violates the condition. Not upon Bs death...

[BeachedBrit]

Doesn't the class (the grandkids) also have to be certain to close within life+21 years of the life in being?

[HBK]

this would depend greatly by state.

TITCR for all property law questions.

[mmribail]

It doesn't matter if A is dead or not. If they're no children and B violates the condition; the gift will go back to A's heirs in FSA. This problem DOES NOT violate RAP. Former property tutor here. So OP lost points on a RAP question; it doesn't matter. I bet half the class did as well. Very few people in the legal profession fully understand RAP. Hell, I think half the judges in the US would get this question wrong.

[dabomb75]

It doesn't matter if A is dead or not. If they're no children and B violates the condition; the gift will go back to A's heirs in FSA. This problem DOES NOT violate RAP. Former property tutor here. So OP lost points on a RAP question; it doesn't matter. I bet half the class did as well. Very few people in the legal profession fully understand RAP. Hell, I think half the judges in the US would get this question wrong.

if C does have 2 children, then RAP would strike it down though right? A is dead, transfers to B, then C has 2 children, then B marries someone of [insert religion here] so B is divested of his property interest, so it goes back to A's estate, then B and C both die off immediately afterwards and you count 21 years from that point right? So then if the class of C's grandchildren isn't closed within 21 years then it doesn't go to the grandchildren?

[BeachedBrit]

It doesn't matter if A is dead or not. If they're no children and B violates the condition; the gift will go back to A's heirs in FSA. This problem DOES NOT violate RAP. Former property tutor here. So OP lost points on a RAP question; it doesn't matter. I bet half the class did as well. Very few people in the legal profession fully understand RAP. Hell, I think half the judges in the US would get this question wrong.

So then half of it would go back to B anyway as a TIC with C? Since A is B's father and his only other son is C and there was no explicit statement in the will on what to do with the property if it was to come back to A?

[AreJay711]

It doesn't matter if A is dead or not. If they're no children and B violates the condition; the gift will go back to A's heirs in FSA. This problem DOES NOT violate RAP. Former property tutor here. So OP lost points on a RAP question; it doesn't matter. I bet half the class did as well. Very few people in the legal profession fully understand RAP. Hell, I think half the judges in the US would get this question wrong.

if C does have 2 children, then RAP would strike it down though right? A is dead, transfers to B, then C has 2 children, then B marries someone of [insert religion here] so B is divested of his property interest, so it goes back to A's estate, then B and C both die off immediately afterwards and you count 21 years from that point right? So then if the class of C's grandchildren isn't closed within 21 years then it doesn't go to the grandchildren?

No, it has to vest within B's lifetime. B can't marry someone when he is dead.

[mmribail]

It doesn't matter if A is dead or not. If they're no children and B violates the condition; the gift will go back to A's heirs in FSA. This problem DOES NOT violate RAP. Former property tutor here. So OP lost points on a RAP question; it doesn't matter. I bet half the class did as well. Very few people in the legal profession fully understand RAP. Hell, I think half the judges in the US would get this question wrong.

if C does have 2 children, then RAP would strike it down though right? A is dead, transfers to B, then C has 2 children, then B marries someone of [insert religion here] so B is divested of his property interest, so it goes back to A's estate, then B and C both die off immediately afterwards and you count 21 years from that point right? So then if the class of C's grandchildren isn't closed within 21 years then it doesn't go to the grandchildren?

No, it has to vest within B's lifetime. B can't marry someone when he is dead.

Exactly! It vest within B's lifetime. As soon as B is divested in that situation the class is closed as to C's hypothetical children. It FULLY vests in those children. If no children A gets a reversion. It DOES NOT matter if A is dead or not. If A is dead it goes to A's heirs is FSA. Now if the question said children that reach age 25 then yes, it is a class that is open. And will violate RAP. It is OK though OP. I assure you half the class got this wrong. So you may not have aced property and ended up with a B or B+. Just bounce back on the other finals.

[mmribail]

Also, you're getting ahead of yourself OP. Heirs do not always mean your children. That is the topic of Wills and Trusts and outside of the scope of Property. There are intestacy beneficiaries and Will beneficiaries. Probate is an awesome area of the law. I don't know too many people from TLS that are into it, but I personally feel it is alot better than the big law grind.