I hate RAP.
For those of you that have BarBri first year review page 31 says, "Executory Intesrest Following Defeasible Fee Violates the Rule."
The example they give has to do with a conveyance, "To J for so long as no marijuana is smoked on the premises, then to C." They claim this violates RAP because someone might "light up" years after J and C die.
But how would this apply if the contingency is not tied to the property but rather to lives in being?
O conveys "to A for life, then to A's children (a, b, c), but if A's children smoke marijuana, then the part of who ever smoked marijuana to their children."
I think in this case, and I might be wrong, the life in beings are A, B, C. And they will all be dead an incapable of smoking marijuana 21 years after their death, so no rule violation.
However, I migth be wrong in assuming that the rule warrants the death of all the children? If it's only the first one, (i.e. A dies first) then I could see how the rule might be violated since B or C might toke up in the very distant future.
Final on wednesday, going crazy.