Free and Fun (relatively) Review of Property
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:59 pm
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=266524
Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.ballouttacontrol wrote: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
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?LionelHutzJD wrote:Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.ballouttacontrol wrote: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
Ya exactlymvp99 wrote: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?LionelHutzJD wrote:Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.ballouttacontrol wrote: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
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.ballouttacontrol wrote:Ya exactlymvp99 wrote: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?LionelHutzJD wrote:Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.ballouttacontrol wrote: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
yea that definitely violates RAP (lives =/= leaves)LionelHutzJD wrote: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.ballouttacontrol wrote:Ya exactlymvp99 wrote: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?LionelHutzJD wrote:Not sure I'm understanding. Page 12 seems to disagree with you. Executory interests with no time duration generally violate the RAP.ballouttacontrol wrote: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