Top Law Schools

Post any property questions, doubts, clarifications, personal opinions, case comparisons, etc here!
I'm almost done with my outline and I think Q/As help me remember stuff. Hopefully it will help others too if we get a discussion going.

Are easements and covenants subject to the estates language (present interest, future interest etc.)? If so, are they subject to the rule against perpetuities?

Scotusnerd wrote:Are easements and covenants subject to the estates language (present interest, future interest etc.)? If so, are they subject to the rule against perpetuities?

I know there are easements determinable, but don't believe covenants have a determinable type. Furthermore, I don't believe easements are subject to any other type of estate language, so no easement in fee tail, tehehe. As to RAP, only contingent remainders, vested remainders subject to open (or partial divestment), executory interests, and option contracts are subject to the RAP.

haven't learned easements yet but they're every where..... dk why we're waiting till the end.... mostly tagging this.

but i don't see why they couldn't be - why you couldn't grant an easement to someone today and someone else tomorrow. technically if you grant it for a finite term, you can say it's a term of years easement determinable?

Scotusnerd wrote:Are easements and covenants subject to the estates language (present interest, future interest etc.)? If so, are they subject to the rule against perpetuities?

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "subject to" but I think you can have an easement or covenant regardless of what type of interest you have...and I don't think RAP applies to covenants or easements at all. Which is weird because an equitable servitude IS an interest in land...so it seems like it should apply..

swtlilsoni wrote:I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "subject to" but I think you can have an easement or covenant regardless of what type of interest you have...and I don't think RAP applies to covenants or easements at all. Which is weird because an equitable servitude IS an interest in land...so it seems like it should apply..

Yeah, that's exactly what I was wondering. I don't think I'm going to argue that it's subject to those, because I doubt that a professor would give credit for it, but hey, if I have some extra time...

Q on Wild Deeds:

So I know they don't give constructive notice, but let's say the original owner is an honest non-douchebag and isn't trying to sell it a 2nd time.

Would the owner with the wild deed now be able to sell it to a 3rd party, and have it be valid from then on forward?

How important is it to understand the rule against perpetuities?

thegrayman wrote:How important is it to understand the rule against perpetuities?

Important if it's on the exam. It's not really that difficult.

stillwater wrote:

thegrayman wrote:How important is it to understand the rule against perpetuities?

Important if it's on the exam. It's not really that difficult.

i find it very difficult....... u have notes on it?

bananapeanutbutter wrote:

stillwater wrote:

thegrayman wrote:How important is it to understand the rule against perpetuities?

Important if it's on the exam. It's not really that difficult.

i find it very difficult....... u have notes on it?

Just remember that the interest is void if it is POSSIBLE that it won't vest within the "time period".
And the time period is basically 21 years after everyone dies.

swtlilsoni wrote:

bananapeanutbutter wrote:

stillwater wrote:

thegrayman wrote:How important is it to understand the rule against perpetuities?

Important if it's on the exam. It's not really that difficult.

i find it very difficult....... u have notes on it?

Just remember that the interest is void if it is POSSIBLE that it won't vest within the "time period".
And the time period is basically 21 years after everyone dies.

can you define everyone, princess? this is where i get lost.

Everyone is anyone specifically named in the conveyance.

Example:

John's will states that his land will be given to the first child of his that marries.

Let's kill John. Is it possible to imagine that none of his children will marry until after 21 years? Sure. Therefore, this example violates the RAP and is struck from the will.

Scotusnerd wrote:Everyone is anyone specifically named in the conveyance.

Example:

John's will states that his land will be given to the first child of his that marries.

Let's kill John. Is it possible to imagine that none of his children will marry until after 21 years? Sure. Therefore, this example violates the RAP and is struck from the will.

Does the person have to be specifically named?
What if John has a child already. Do we have to wait for that child to die to start the 21-year clock?

On all books and resources it doesn't say anything about the person being specifically named. It just says all people alive at the time..

That depends on the conveyance. The will simply says 'the first child.' It doesn't matter how many children are alive at the time. And yes, it's all people alive and specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The children are not specifically enumerated, so they don't have to die to figure it out.

The problems occur when you have an executory interest, a contingent remainder, or a vested remainder subject to open.

Scotusnerd wrote:That depends on the conveyance. The will simply says 'the first child.' It doesn't matter how many children are alive at the time. And yes, it's all people alive and specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The children are not specifically enumerated, so they don't have to die to figure it out.

The problems occur when you have an executory interest, a contingent remainder, or a vested remainder subject to open.

What if there was something weird like "this land goes to John if his daughter, Angela, buys a house across from the store owned by Jimmy.

Does Jimmy have to die?

What if it said "jimmy's father" does he have to die? because he is specifically mentioned but his name is not mentioned.

I'm not sure that that's a conveyance of land. That's the first point I'd argue. You might be making an springing executory interest in fee simple absolute, but that's kinda iffy. I'd probably debate that with the professor on the exam, particularly since it sounds like a gift. It has to be a present, irrevocable transfer.

RAP: It is measured by "a life" in the deed. I personally wouldn't argue that either Jimmy or his father had to die for this (or Angela, for that matter), since they're not getting any interests. I think it's just John.

So let's kill John and the conveyor. 21 years go by. Is there still an interest that can vest? Nope, since John is dead, the property goes nowhere. Therefore, this doesn't violate the RAP.

I'm not entirey sure on this point, but given the rule, I don't think you'd get docked points for that analysis.

When determining whether, say, an easement benefits the dominant estate for the purposes of distinguishing a easement appurtenant from an easement in gross, can you use the economic principles that can be applied to establish the 'touch and concern' element in restrictive covenants and equitable servitudes?

I'm thinking of a situation where there isn't a clear physical benefit like a prescriptive right of way; but rather something along the lines of A, the owner of whiteacre, conveys nearby blackacre to B and grants him an express easement to hunt and fish on whiteacre.

If C were to inherit blackacre from B, could you argue that this easement runs with the land as an easement appurtenant because of the economic benefit to the dominant estate and the economic burden (yearly loss of fish and game) to the servient estate? Or is this just a commercial easement in gross which would require an express assignment to a third party?

Yeah, you can have an express easement for whatever you want. You could give someone the right to jack off on your lawn if you're cool with it. It only has to be necessary or reasonably necessary when it's implied or something similar.

bananapeanutbutter wrote:Yeah, you can have an express easement for whatever you want. You could give someone the right to jack off on your lawn if you're cool with it. It only has to be necessary or reasonably necessary when it's implied or something similar.

I love this. I'm going to write this on my exam (with a proper citation to bananapeanutbutter, of course)

mr.hands wrote:

bananapeanutbutter wrote:Yeah, you can have an express easement for whatever you want. You could give someone the right to jack off on your lawn if you're cool with it. It only has to be necessary or reasonably necessary when it's implied or something similar.

I love this. I'm going to write this on my exam (with a proper citation to bananapeanutbutter, of course)

well, with a name like mr. hands i can see why it would appeal to you.

i give you an easement you to use my perverted analogies without citation.

bananapeanutbutter wrote:

mr.hands wrote:

bananapeanutbutter wrote:Yeah, you can have an express easement for whatever you want. You could give someone the right to jack off on your lawn if you're cool with it. It only has to be necessary or reasonably necessary when it's implied or something similar.

I love this. I'm going to write this on my exam (with a proper citation to bananapeanutbutter, of course)

well, with a name like mr. hands i can see why it would appeal to you.

LOL

bananapeanutbutter wrote:

mr.hands wrote:

bananapeanutbutter wrote:Yeah, you can have an express easement for whatever you want. You could give someone the right to jack off on your lawn if you're cool with it. It only has to be necessary or reasonably necessary when it's implied or something similar.

I love this. I'm going to write this on my exam (with a proper citation to bananapeanutbutter, of course)

well, with a name like mr. hands i can see why it would appeal to you.

i give you an easement you to use my perverted analogies without citation.

I'll take your license

Does anyone know if joint tenants severe the joint tenancy if they convey a life estate? If not, is the life estate holder a tenant in common with the other joint tenant?

A and B are joint tenants. A conveys a life estate to C.

I'd imagine if he conveyed his reversion to D, then that would definitely severe the JT.

.