O to A for life, then to B for life, then to C for life.
A quitclaims to O. What does B have?
B is convicted for killing C. What does O have?
I'm confused about rules of forfeiture.
Forfeiture Question Forum
-
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm
Re: Forfeiture Question
Ill try, but I didn't refresh my memory on this, so if I'm wrong, let's hear it. I'm assuming these were meant to be read in sequence.LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:O to A for life, then to B for life, then to C for life.
A quitclaims to O. What does B have?
B is convicted for killing C. What does O have?
I'm confused about rules of forfeiture.
A quitclaims to O. What does B have? B has a life estate that begins when A dies.
B is convicted for killing C. What does O have? A reversionary interest in fee simple that begins upon the death of B. Bs murder of C doesn't benefit B vis-a-vis the life estate, so he doesn't forfeit the life estate. But had C murdered B, he would forfeit his life estate as his crime benefited him by giving him a possessory interest sooner than he would have without the murder.
Is this law?
-
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:57 pm
Re: Forfeiture Question
LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:O to A for life, then to B for life, then to C for life.
A quitclaims to O. What does B have?
B is convicted for killing C. What does O have?
I'm confused about rules of forfeiture.
1. B has a contingent remainder in a life estate (contingent on B outliving A). If I recall correctly, when outliving the predecessor-in-interest is the only condition, it can also just be considered a vested remainder.
2. O has a life estate pur autre vie measured by A's life (which is what he had after the quitclaim). When A dies (assuming B is alive), O will have a reversion in fee simple absolute. If B dies while A is still living, O just has a fee simple absolute.
As the above poster correctly pointed out, B doesn't forfeit his interest in the estate just because he murdered someone who wasn't going to take until he died anyway...
- fundamentallybroken
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:52 am
Re: Forfeiture Question
But doesn't A's quitclaim to O just put everything back in to O as fee simple absolute, thus destroying contingent remainders?nymario wrote:LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:O to A for life, then to B for life, then to C for life.
A quitclaims to O. What does B have?
B is convicted for killing C. What does O have?
I'm confused about rules of forfeiture.
1. B has a contingent remainder in a life estate (contingent on B outliving A). If I recall correctly, when outliving the predecessor-in-interest is the only condition, it can also just be considered a vested remainder.
2. O has a life estate pur autre vie measured by A's life (which is what he had after the quitclaim). When A dies (assuming B is alive), O will have a reversion in fee simple absolute. If B dies while A is still living, O just has a fee simple absolute.
As the above poster correctly pointed out, B doesn't forfeit his interest in the estate just because he murdered someone who wasn't going to take until he died anyway...
My property class is a strange animal, and this is how we would have approached the problem, but that doesn't mean it bears relation to how others may handle it...
-
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm
Re: Forfeiture Question
A can only quitclaim the interest it has - the life estate. A's quitclaim doesn't impact B and C's contingent remainders in a life estate.
A could have quit claimed to D and the result would have been the same - B would have a contingent remainder in a life estate (contingent on outliving A).
I aced property back in the day, but I'm not up on my terminology (or the bullshit rules) as much as I was the night before the exam when I crammed it all in there. I found the rules elegant and non-intuitive, strangely satisfying to figure out. Obviously, I've lost my touch.
A could have quit claimed to D and the result would have been the same - B would have a contingent remainder in a life estate (contingent on outliving A).
I aced property back in the day, but I'm not up on my terminology (or the bullshit rules) as much as I was the night before the exam when I crammed it all in there. I found the rules elegant and non-intuitive, strangely satisfying to figure out. Obviously, I've lost my touch.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login