Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 1Lmania

Pages: [1]
1
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: RAP question
« on: April 27, 2009, 08:11:54 PM »
Right.  I think his life estate pur autra vie (with A being the measuring life) automatically ripens in 1990 without the need for additional procedures. 

2
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: RAP question
« on: April 27, 2009, 04:12:04 PM »
Me and my study parter disagree about the answer to the following future interest question.  Which answer do you guys think is better?

O to A for life, then to B and her heirs.     

Thereafter in 1980, AP enters adversely and possesses and improves the property in a manner necessary to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession.  In 1988, however, A transfers her interest to X.  Assuming the period prescribed by the statute of limitation is 10 years, which would be the correct way to state the title in 1994? 

Does AP hold a life estate for the life of A, and B holds a vested remainder in fee simple? 

Or

Does X hold a life estate for the life of A, B holds a vested remainder in fee simple, and APs interest will not vest until 1998? 

3
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: RAP question
« on: April 26, 2009, 10:21:11 PM »
No, I don't think A child has a contigent remainder.  I think he has a springing executory interest  (not a remainder, since it is separated from the life estate by a "built-in time gap.")  Since the child's interest will not vest upon the natural termination of the preceding life estate, it cannot be classified as a remainder. 

4
General Board / Re: RAP question
« on: April 26, 2009, 08:50:48 PM »
Thank you.

5
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: RAP question
« on: April 26, 2009, 08:49:15 PM »
Yes, I think this point is irrelvant to the analysis. 

How would you state the title for # 5?  Would it be A has present possesory life estate, o has a reversion, and A's first child has a future contigent interest subject to a condition precedent? 

6
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: RAP question
« on: April 25, 2009, 09:49:09 PM »

I agree with Army Jag about #2:

I thinks this violates the rule because the contingent remainder to As issue- (i.e., As issue that are alive at the time of the widows death) might vest in As issue more than 21 years after any life in being at the time of the creation of the interest.  This is because the widow may have been born after the interest was created.  The contingent interest in As children is contingent on them being alive when the widow dies which may be more than 21 years after the death of any life in being at the creation of the interest.

7
Studying and Exam Taking / RAP question
« on: April 25, 2009, 06:21:59 PM »
Hello everyone.  I am having trouble with the RAP.  Can anyone tell me if any of these conveyances violate the RAP?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!


Do any of these conveyances violate the Rule Against Perpetuities? 

1)   O conveys to A for life, then to As children for life, then to As grandchildren for life. 
2)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow, if any, for life, then to As   issue then living. 
3)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow for life, then to As children.
4)   By will, o devises Blackacre to Os widow for life, then to Os children who are then alive. 
5)   O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to As first child if he survives A by 21 years.  A has no children.   

8
General Board / RAP question
« on: April 25, 2009, 06:10:42 PM »

I'm having trouble understanding the RAP.  Can someone please tell me if any of these conveyances violate the RAP?
Thank you! ;D



Do any of these conveyances violate the Rule Against Perpetuities? 

1)   O conveys to A for life, then to As children for life, then to As grandchildren for life. 
2)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow, if any, for life, then to As   issue then living. 
3)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow for life, then to As children.
4)   By will, o devises Blackacre to Os widow for life, then to Os children who are then alive. 
5)   O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to As first child if he survives A by 21 years.  A has no children.   

Pages: [1]