Another Formulation of the Rule Against Perpetuities

[sistersaredoinitallalone]

Anyone please?! The Rule in its @ # ! * e d - u p form says:

To be valid, an interest must vest, if atall, within a life in being plus 21 years.

[crac]

Hi sisters!

Another, more down-to-earth formulation would be this,

If there is any possibility that the interest may vest outside the period of the Rule (a life in being plus 21 years), the interest is invalid.

[CoxlessPair]

People really seem to struggle with RAP.

Crac has it right.

1. Determine if the interest is subject to RAP (CR, VR-STO, EI)
2. If so, does it violate RAP? (Can it vest 21 years after the death after all the Lives in Being/Validating Lives)
3. If it does, recreate the conveyance having removed the violating grant/devisement.

Examples:
•   O to Anna for life, then to Ben and his heirs if Ben ever marries.
o   Ben’s CR is subject to RAP.
o   NOT a violation of RAP. Ben determines the vesting. He cannot get vest after he dies (he cannot marry after death).
o   21 year element not necessary if this case.
Must vest or fail to vest within a life in being: Ben’s Life.



L to J for life, then to J’s kids and their heirs when they read 25.
F, J’s kid, is 25.

J-LE
F- VR-STO in FSA

J is both the validating life and determiner of the class.

2000 Interest Created
2001 J has Ben
2002 F & J (LIB) DIE!
2023 RAP Period begins
2026, Ben turns 25 and vests.

VIOLATION. Ben would vest 21 years after all the LIB die.

Violates and class gift is no good.

Now J has LE and L has reversion in FSA.

[doesnotallowgreekcharacte]

LOL sisters! A very interesting thread! I promise to contribute substantially in the near future!

[denna]

The Fertile Octogenarian

- To B for life, then to B's children for life, remainder to B's grandchildren.  B is 80 years old.

The grant to B's grandchildren is void, since B could (from a legal perspective) still have children.  Therefore the class of B's children is not closed, B is the measuring life, and the grant to B's grandchildren could possibly fail to vest until 21 years after B dies.

The Unborn Widow

- To B for life, then to B's widow for life, remainder to the children of B that survive the survivor of B and B's widow.

The grant to the children is void since "B's widow" could be a person yet unborn (and thus not a life in being).  Therefore, B is the measuring life, and the grant to the kids could possibly fail to vest 21 years after B's death.

[qui tam]

LOL denna!

[emilysreasons]

Property is so much full of *&^%

[J D]

Two quick points:

1) You have the explanation of the classic Gray formulation (under the "what might happen" approach of the common law) mostly right, with one exception.  The future interest ubject to the Rule must vest OR FAIL prior to 21 years after the end of all lives in being at the time of the grant.  In other words, it's not enough to aks whether the future interest will vest by that time; a future interest can also withstand the Rule if it is certain to FAIL (not vest) by the time the 21 years is up.  At least, that's how I've understood the Rule; please point me in the right direction if I'm confused or mistaken.

2) Note that this version of the Rule is hardly used anymore.  VERY few states still follow the strict common law approach; most states have instead opted for some version of the "wait and see" approach (i.e., we'll wait and see if the remainder will really vest or fail within a certain period, either 21 years, or 90 years as proposed by the popular Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities) instead of thinking up crazy counterexamples, as under the common law.  Other states have allowed for some reformation of grants that violate the RAP.  Others have allowed for perpetual trusts (and since trusts are where these issues most often arise, this is tantamount to abolishing the rule); others have just gotten rid of the Rule.  Although it might still be useful to know the common law rule and be able to apply it (because it sharpens your analytical skills in future interests generally, perhaps), the Rule as it was classically formulated is gone in most jurisdictions, for all practical purposes.

[Chauffeur]

"Outing" of closeted gays and lesbians is not a new phenomenon. It occurred during the McCarthy era and before, often with an intent to harm the closeted homosexual with the threat of public disclosure of homosexuality.

To extend a bit here and offer a hypo for you all: A married man is placed under surveillance by the FBI. During the 4+ years they're following him they found out that he engaged in 7 separate occasions in homosexual sex with other men in a couple of open public areas that gay men frequent. Three out of the seven instances were oral sex, two of them intercourse (being the active partner), and one time he just kissed the other guy and cuddled him a little bit.

After a certain time period, the FBI decides to make the target aware of being under their surveillance (active surveillance), and also deepens its infiltration, such that his wife too is part of the game. The man is clearly in the situation of being defamed, given the fact that he's not a public figure, he doesn't consider him to be "homosexual," (truth-be-told, a lot of straight men may have 1-2 gay encounters a year with other men), and the First Amendment defense doesn't even apply in this case.

Because people tend to believe what the government say, he's clearly injured, with his wife divorcing him after a while (albeit, she never confronted him directly about the matter, not being allowed to even acknowledge to him she was approached by the agency). I think this would be a curious hypo, in that although statements were never printed or even publicly acknowledged, just like in the case of Cruise's "South Park," they're just as defamatory and injurious. Feel free to share. Please do.

Are you sure that's the way it works in practice, or is this just a hypo? Sounds strange to me!