1
Current Law Students / Re: RAP question
« on: April 27, 2009, 05:11:54 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.
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.
Pages: [1]
2
Current Law Students / Re: RAP question
« on: April 27, 2009, 01:12:04 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 AP’s interest will not vest until 1998?
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 AP’s interest will not vest until 1998?
3
Current Law Students / Re: RAP question
« on: April 26, 2009, 07:21:11 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.
5
Current Law Students / Re: RAP question
« on: April 26, 2009, 05:49:15 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?
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
Current Law Students / Re: RAP question
« on: April 25, 2009, 06:49:09 PM »I agree with Army Jag about #2:
I thinks this violates the rule because the contingent remainder to A’s issue- (i.e., A’s issue that are alive at the time of the widow’s death) might vest in A’s 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 A’s 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
Current Law Students / RAP question
« on: April 25, 2009, 03:21:59 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 A’s children for life, then to A’s grandchildren for life.
2) O conveys to A for life, then to A’s widow, if any, for life, then to A’s issue then living.
3) O conveys to A for life, then to A’s widow for life, then to A’s children.
4) By will, o devises Blackacre to O’s widow for life, then to O’s children who are then alive.
5) O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to A’s first child if he survives A by 21 years. A has no children.
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 A’s children for life, then to A’s grandchildren for life.
2) O conveys to A for life, then to A’s widow, if any, for life, then to A’s issue then living.
3) O conveys to A for life, then to A’s widow for life, then to A’s children.
4) By will, o devises Blackacre to O’s widow for life, then to O’s children who are then alive.
5) O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to A’s first child if he survives A by 21 years. A has no children.
8
Current Law Students / RAP question
« on: April 25, 2009, 03:10:42 PM »I'm having trouble understanding the RAP. Can someone please tell me if any of these conveyances violate the RAP?
Thank you!
Do any of these conveyances violate the Rule Against Perpetuities?
1) O conveys to A for life, then to A’s children for life, then to A’s grandchildren for life.
2) O conveys to A for life, then to A’s widow, if any, for life, then to A’s issue then living.
3) O conveys to A for life, then to A’s widow for life, then to A’s children.
4) By will, o devises Blackacre to O’s widow for life, then to O’s children who are then alive.
5) O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to A’s first child if he survives A by 21 years. A has no children.
Pages: [1]