Last minute Real Quick Property Question Forum

[kraeton]

A Life Tenant owes a duty to Future Interest holders to not commit Waste in the form of Permissive, Affirmative, and Ameliorative Waste.

However, does a Holder of a FS Subject to Executory Interest (A) owe nothing to the person with the Executory Interest (B), since it's not a sure thing whether that person will get anything or not? The answer choices seem to suggest that's the case, but I can imagine scenarios where A just decides to fuck the whole land over and leave it a barren nothingness. If the condition is that "To A... If A has no issue, then to B" and they find out there's oil on that land AND A just took a fertility test and he's shooting blanks and has no intent on adopting. Can't he just extract every last drop before he dies, and leave life an asshole bazillionaire and B's left with shit?

Seems to fly in the face of Grantor's intent though.

[Kage3212]

A Life Tenant owes a duty to Future Interest holders to not commit Waste in the form of Permissive, Affirmative, and Ameliorative Waste.

However, does a Holder of a FS Subject to Executory Interest (A) owe nothing to the person with the Executory Interest (B), since it's not a sure thing whether that person will get anything or not? The answer choices seem to suggest that's the case, but I can imagine scenarios where A just decides to fuck the whole land over and leave it a barren nothingness. If the condition is that "To A... If A has no issue, then to B" and they find out there's oil on that land AND A just took a fertility test and he's shooting blanks and has no intent on adopting. Can't he just extract every last drop before he dies, and leave life an asshole bazillionaire and B's left with shit?

Seems to fly in the face of Grantor's intent though.

A life tenant cannot commit waste, correct. As you insinuate and seem to understand, the holder of a fee simple subject to an executory interest has no obligation to worry about future interest holders and can do as he pleases (note, he does have a form of a fee simple which is the best interest). To the part about the grantor's intent, I would argue it doesnt fly in the face of his intent. If grantor didnt want A dicking around on the land, grantor should have given him a life estate to prevent that; or nothing at all.

[despina]

Agree with Kage. Even if the executory interest seems basically certain, the holder in fee can still do whatever s/he wants with the land before the executory interest kicks in, since that's the joy of a fee simple.