Law School 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 - USC313

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11
Current Law Students / Question about Future Interests
« on: September 27, 2008, 11:04:48 PM »
Can anyone knowledgeable about Property/Future Interests held explain this to me? The following hypo was taken from the Examples & Explanations series (which, IMO, is horribly written and explains things terribly):

"Owen transfers Blackacre to Abby for life so long as she farms Blackacre, but if she does not farm it, to Becky. What is Becky's interest. It is a remainder--that is, it succeeds the life estate, becoming possessory at Abby's death. It can also succeed sooner--upon Abby's not farming Blackacre--but that earlier termination does not turn Becky's interest into an executory one. It would if the earlier termination were the only possible way Becky's interest could end, but it is not. Abby's life estate being a determinable one does not prevent Beck's interest from being a remainder"

My understanding of executory interests and remainders are as follows: They are similar in the respect that the future interest is in a 3rd person, not the original grantor. They differ, however, in that a remainder follows the natural ending of a prior estate (i.e. for example, a plain old 'life estate'). The executory interest, on the other hand, follows the unnatural ending of a prior estate (i.e. for example, a defeasible fee estate)

THAT BEING SAID--how can the hypo above say that Becky has a remainder? The language, IMO, appears to say that Becky only gets the land if Abby does not farm the land. If she does--doesn't the original grantor retain a reversion following Abby's death? Moreover, shouldn't the future interest be classified as an executory one--that is, subject to the condition that no farming take place for Becky to get the land? I just don't understand how, based on the language of the grant, Becky succeeds to the land whether or not Abby actually does any farming. (i.e. how she gets the land at the end of Abby's life regardless of whether any farming took place). Any help on this one?

Current Law Students / Re: First Assignments
« on: August 14, 2008, 12:30:39 AM »
I'm a rising 2L by the way. I knew what was coming--just wish we were given a little more time for preparation. Just because I've already completed a year of law school doesn't mean I should be excited about massive amounts of reading and little time to do it in.

Current Law Students / First Assignments
« on: August 13, 2008, 11:57:33 PM »
Anyone else get their first assignments for class this week and discover they have a ton of reading to do in a week? It gets me frustrated that schools don't release the information earlier.


Can anyone recommend a supplement for the above referenced course? Should I go with E&E, or is there a different one more widely used?

Current Law Students / Re: Universal First Year Cases (In any class)
« on: July 21, 2008, 08:46:27 PM »
I agree with Jacy85's post about waiting. As a side note, has anyone ever noticed that Jacy85 seems to comment on almost EVERYTHING posted on this forum? No offense to you Jacy--I applaud your enthusiasm--but how else do you spend your time?

Job Search / Re: website: where students were hired at their schools
« on: July 16, 2008, 12:51:07 PM »
Someone reply to the post if you know.

How can you have a 3.2 at BC and BU at the same time?

Current Law Students / Re: Should I drop out?
« on: June 24, 2008, 02:52:09 PM »
I'm not sure they should consider his 'reliance' interest in determining that the original poster should keep his scholarship money for summer classes. His 'reliance' would have been the expectation that at least his 1st semester, 1L would have been paid for. It was. Following this he did not meet the condition that he maintain a 2.0 term GPA--so the scholarship money is gone. If the original poster was actually going to sue over this and proceed on some sort of contract theory--he would lose. It seems to me that his school's OFFER of a scholarship renews each semester. Since the poster can only ACCEPT the terms by performance (maintenance of a 2.0 or higher) then Restatement (2nd) Contracts 45 would control. Here the school is the offeror, and they are released from their duty to perform (pay his tuition) because the poster (offeree) did not complete performance within the terms of the schools offer. Restatement 90 won't work for him. It seems difficult that his reliance on scholarship money for summer classes would be 'justifiable' considering that he was aware of the need to maintain the 2.0.

Job Search / Re: Questions about a state Supreme Court clerkship??
« on: June 23, 2008, 09:38:03 AM »
Another thing to keep in mind is what type of 1L grades you end up with. Average or below probably won't cut it with a state supreme court, despite your contact therein. The court has its standards to uphold, so I would recommend trying to make top 10% at whatever school your going to.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11