Free and Fun (relatively) Review of Property Forum

[myrtlewinston]

http://www.uslawreview.com/topics/property

[LionelHutzJD]

If you are struggling with property, or even just looking to improve in property, I fully recommend these videos. Especially the one on Mortgages. The best part about them is how close they resemble the MBE material. It's almost like watching the animated Conviser Mini Review on Property.

[ballouttacontrol]

Watched RAP video, their example is wrong. Nothxjeff.

"To A, so long as A lives on the premises, then to B"

I don't see how this could possibly violate rap since there is no possibility B's rights could vest more than 21 years after A's life.

Barbri mini conviser seems to agree, page 12

[LionelHutzJD]

Watched RAP video, their example is wrong. Nothxjeff.

"To A, so long as A lives on the premises, then to B"

I don't see how this could possibly violate rap since there is no possibility B's rights could vest more than 21 years after A's life.

Barbri mini conviser seems to agree, page 12

Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.

[mvp99]

Watched RAP video, their example is wrong. Nothxjeff.

"To A, so long as A lives on the premises, then to B"

I don't see how this could possibly violate rap since there is no possibility B's rights could vest more than 21 years after A's life.

Barbri mini conviser seems to agree, page 12

Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.

I think the duration limit of the executory interest is implied in A's life. A will die (and A is probably a measuring life) and B or his heirs will take no matter what within 21 years. Am I missing something?

[ballouttacontrol]

Watched RAP video, their example is wrong. Nothxjeff.

"To A, so long as A lives on the premises, then to B"

I don't see how this could possibly violate rap since there is no possibility B's rights could vest more than 21 years after A's life.

Barbri mini conviser seems to agree, page 12

Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.

I think the duration limit of the executory interest is implied in A's life. A will die (and A is probably a measuring life) and B or his heirs will take no matter what within 21 years. Am I missing something?

Ya exactly

[Rahviveh]

There are a lot of incorrect statements of law in these videos. I would proceed with caution. Keep your official full outlines close at hand to double check.

[LionelHutzJD]

Watched RAP video, their example is wrong. Nothxjeff.

"To A, so long as A lives on the premises, then to B"

I don't see how this could possibly violate rap since there is no possibility B's rights could vest more than 21 years after A's life.

Barbri mini conviser seems to agree, page 12

Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.

I think the duration limit of the executory interest is implied in A's life. A will die (and A is probably a measuring life) and B or his heirs will take no matter what within 21 years. Am I missing something?

Ya exactly

The language used was "To A, so long as A never leaves the premises, then to B" This is in line with our general rule that an executory interest with no time limitation violates the RAP. But I do understand your point. Either way, OVERALL these videos have been helpful to visualize the concepts.

[mvp99]

Watched RAP video, their example is wrong. Nothxjeff.

"To A, so long as A lives on the premises, then to B"

I don't see how this could possibly violate rap since there is no possibility B's rights could vest more than 21 years after A's life.

Barbri mini conviser seems to agree, page 12

Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.

I think the duration limit of the executory interest is implied in A's life. A will die (and A is probably a measuring life) and B or his heirs will take no matter what within 21 years. Am I missing something?

Ya exactly

The language used was "To A, so long as A never leaves the premises, then to B" This is in line with our general rule that an executory interest with no time limitation violates the RAP. But I do understand your point. Either way, OVERALL these videos have been helpful to visualize the concepts.

yea that definitely violates RAP (lives =/= leaves)

[ballouttacontrol]

I don't remember what the verbiage was, but even if it was leaves, how could A leave the premises more than 21 years after his death?

[Fiona91216]

Gravediggers.