RAP Question Forum

[Arbinshire]

I hate the damned rule against perpetuities. Everytime I think I've got it mastered, something else pops up that confuses me.

Why exactly is this invalid under RAP: To A for life, then to A's widow, remainder to her children.

All I figure out is that perhaps A is the measuring life, and A's widow may have more children beyond the measuring life, so no vesting within 21 years? Perhaps if it said A's children?

[robinhoodOO]

I hate the damned rule against perpetuities. Everytime I think I've got it mastered, something else pops up that confuses me.

Why exactly is this invalid under RAP: To A for life, then to A's widow, remainder to her children.

All I figure out is that perhaps A is the measuring life, and A's widow may have more children beyond the measuring life, so no vesting within 21 years? Perhaps if it said A's children?

The remainder appears to be vested subject to open and must vest within 21 years after A's life estate ends. Since the measurement after A's life is his Widow's life, it can't fully vest if open after 21 years. Like you said, it's possible she may have more children and, therefore, violates RAP

Thus, the remainder is defeated and Widow has an FSA.

Feel free to correct me other posters if I completely biffed it

[BVest]

It's not an issue of being vested subject to open (ETA, well, not JUST about being vested subject to open). Break it down:

To A for Life, then to A's widow for life, then to her children.

A is a valid life in being.

"His widow" is not a valid life in being because we won't know who that is until he dies. Even if he's married to wife 1 at the time of the transfer and they have kids, he could get divorced or she could pre-decease him, and therefore she would never be his widow and those kids would never be the kids of the widow.

Instead, he could remarry someone without kids and wife 2 could become the widow, and then she could have kids >21 years after A dies.

Therefore A, as the only valid life in being at the time of the transfer, cannot assure a vesting of her kids within 21 years of his LIB.

[victortsoi]

It's not an issue of being vested subject to open (ETA, well, not JUST about being vested subject to open). Break it down:

To A for Life, then to A's widow for life, then to her children.

A is a valid life in being.

"His widow" is not a valid life in being because we won't know who that is until he dies. Even if he's married to wife 1 at the time of the transfer and they have kids, he could get divorced or she could pre-decease him, and therefore she would never be his widow and those kids would never be the kids of the widow.

Instead, he could remarry someone without kids and wife 2 could become the widow, and then she could have kids >21 years after A dies.

Therefore A, as the only valid life in being at the time of the transfer, cannot assure a vesting of her kids within 21 years of his LIB.

What if you change it up a bit to A for life, then to B for life, then to B's children. Won't this be valid, as B's children will be immediately ascertainable when B dies?

[jamescastle]

It's not an issue of being vested subject to open (ETA, well, not JUST about being vested subject to open). Break it down:

To A for Life, then to A's widow for life, then to her children.

A is a valid life in being.

"His widow" is not a valid life in being because we won't know who that is until he dies. Even if he's married to wife 1 at the time of the transfer and they have kids, he could get divorced or she could pre-decease him, and therefore she would never be his widow and those kids would never be the kids of the widow.

Instead, he could remarry someone without kids and wife 2 could become the widow, and then she could have kids >21 years after A dies.

Therefore A, as the only valid life in being at the time of the transfer, cannot assure a vesting of her kids within 21 years of his LIB.

What if you change it up a bit to A for life, then to B for life, then to B's children. Won't this be valid, as B's children will be immediately ascertainable when B dies?

I think if B if someone ascertainable at the time of the transfer this is valid because B is then a life in being and his/her children will be known at his/her death.
Correct me, someone better than me?

[victortsoi]

It's not an issue of being vested subject to open (ETA, well, not JUST about being vested subject to open). Break it down:

To A for Life, then to A's widow for life, then to her children.

A is a valid life in being.

"His widow" is not a valid life in being because we won't know who that is until he dies. Even if he's married to wife 1 at the time of the transfer and they have kids, he could get divorced or she could pre-decease him, and therefore she would never be his widow and those kids would never be the kids of the widow.

Instead, he could remarry someone without kids and wife 2 could become the widow, and then she could have kids >21 years after A dies.

Therefore A, as the only valid life in being at the time of the transfer, cannot assure a vesting of her kids within 21 years of his LIB.

What if you change it up a bit to A for life, then to B for life, then to B's children. Won't this be valid, as B's children will be immediately ascertainable when B dies?

I think if B if someone ascertainable at the time of the transfer this is valid because B is then a life in being and his/her children will be known at his/her death.
Correct me, someone better than me?

this is also somewhere im a little fuzzy-can there be more than one LIB? A dies, then B is the new LIB, and so on, until a RAP issue comes up?

[GULCPerson]

It's not an issue of being vested subject to open (ETA, well, not JUST about being vested subject to open). Break it down:

To A for Life, then to A's widow for life, then to her children.

A is a valid life in being.

"His widow" is not a valid life in being because we won't know who that is until he dies. Even if he's married to wife 1 at the time of the transfer and they have kids, he could get divorced or she could pre-decease him, and therefore she would never be his widow and those kids would never be the kids of the widow.

Instead, he could remarry someone without kids and wife 2 could become the widow, and then she could have kids >21 years after A dies.

Therefore A, as the only valid life in being at the time of the transfer, cannot assure a vesting of her kids within 21 years of his LIB.

What if you change it up a bit to A for life, then to B for life, then to B's children. Won't this be valid, as B's children will be immediately ascertainable when B dies?

I think if B if someone ascertainable at the time of the transfer this is valid because B is then a life in being and his/her children will be known at his/her death.
Correct me, someone better than me?

That's correct. This is valid.

[BVest]

www.top-law-schools.com.org