Law School Discussion

The Rule Against Perpetuities Makes Me Want to Throw My Book Out the Window

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!   SOOO mad.  SOOO technical.  Why?!@#  #$%#$%@#

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3678
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!   SOOO mad.  SOOO technical.  Why?!@#  #$%#$%@#

It sucks ass, and not even the law in about half the states anymore

It's easy!

1. Create a person who is eligible to claim title or who may affect vesting
2. Kill everyone but that life in being.
3. Count the years: does the interest necessarily either vest or not vest in that time? If not...void!

If you can't do step 1, the interest is good.

-

In my first firm interview ever, my interviewer told me a story about a friend who actually had a RAP case - my interviewer laughed at him. Few lawyers deal with it, but you should have a basic understanding of it.

All right, so here's how Cady's thing fits into a basic example:

O transfers "to A for life, then to A's first child to reach 25."

The first child has an executory interest?  (I think.)  And let's say that A dies tomorrow in a terrible window-washing accident.  And A's child is born 9 months later.  And A won't vest that interest until 24 years from now?  So void? 

Right?  ???

er...

I don't answer questions, I just give techniques!

(I so don't remember this *&^%)

Let's say you have B devising "For A for life, then to A's children for the life of the survivor of them, then upon the death of the last surviving child of A, to A's grandchildren."

So we take the grandchildren, who have a contigent interest?  

A dies tomorrow.  A's children die the day after.  A's grandchildren are born the day after A's children both die.  So they get it because it'll vest in them now?

er...

I don't answer questions, I just give techniques!

(I so don't remember this poo)

Whoops . . . sorry, nevermind, then.

Thanks for the technique.  I'm trying it hard, but I can't figure out how far I can stretch hypotheticals in order to make it work or not work.  IT seems like, if you can come up with an absolutely insane hypothetical to make it not vest, then it doesn't work.

Here are some examples from my outline:

O  to A for life, then to As first child to attain 21 and his heirs
(A-LE, As first child-CR, O-reversion)
  interest is good under the Rule
  ◦ once A dies, if he has a child the interest will necessarily vest
  ◦ if no child, it will necessarily fail


O  to A for life, then to As first child to attain 25 and his heirs (A has two children: B is 22, C is 24.5)
(A-LE, B&C-CR, O-reversion)
  interest is no good under the Rule
  ◦ if B & C die before reaching 25, it is possible that A will have another child just prior to death, who
will then not reach 25 within 21 years of the death


O  to A for life, then to Os first grandchild and his heirs (O has 3 children but no grandchildren)
(A-LE, Os grandchildren-CR, O-reversion)
  interest is no good
  ◦ if create a new child, kill everyone else, this child could then have a child more than 21 years later
  * Z was not a life-in-being at the time of the conveyance

O  to A and his heirs as long as A doesnt serve beer, then to B and his heirs
(A-FSD, B-EI)
  interest is good
  ◦ the condition is only applicable to A; when A dies, Bs interest has either necessarily vested (if A
served beer) or it necessarily fails (if A never served beer)



All right, so here's how Cady's thing fits into a basic example:

O transfers "to A for life, then to A's first child to reach 25."

The first child has an executory interest?  (I think.)  And let's say that A dies tomorrow in a terrible window-washing accident.  And A's child is born 9 months later.  And A won't vest that interest until 24 years from now?  So void? 

Right?  ???

Correct that this is void, but i think the reasoning is a little off. A can't possibly give birth 9 months after her own death unless there are new medical practices I'm unaware of. The reason it is void is A's first child to reach 25 may have not been alive when O made the transfer. Let's say A has one child, B, and B is born AFTER O dies. Sadly, A dies soon after childbirth when B is only 1 year old. The gift is void because B will not turn 25 within 21 years. If you can think of any hypothetical in which the gift does not vest in time, then the gift is void.




Let's say you have B devising "For A for life, then to A's children for the life of the survivor of them, then upon the death of the last surviving child of A, to A's grandchildren."

So we take the grandchildren, who have a contigent interest?  

A dies tomorrow.  A's children die the day after.  A's grandchildren are born the day after A's children both die.  So they get it because it'll vest in them now?

   Again, you seem to have child-bearing corpses. A's grandchildren can't be born after A's children die. The gift to A is valid because A is a life in being. The gift to A's children is valid because at the moment of A's death, we will know all of A's children and that becomes a closed class. However, the children themselves are not necessarily lives in being. A's children may all be born after the death of O. Let's say A has two children, B and C. B was born before O died and may be considered a "life in being." C was born after. Sadly, B was so upset over A's death that he committed suicide. At this point C is still alive, but all of the "lives in being" are dead. Thus, the remaining gift to the grandchildren is only valid if we will know ALL the grandchildren within 21 years. C may continue to have children well beyond the 21 year limit. This means we can not guarantee that the interest in A's grandchildren will not vest within the statutory limits so the gift to the grandchildren is invalid.

   I think my reasoning is correct on these two problems but I'm certainly no expert on this dumb law. I could be way off. Hope it helps, though.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3678
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
All right, so here's how Cady's thing fits into a basic example:

O transfers "to A for life, then to A's first child to reach 25."

The first child has an executory interest?  (I think.)  And let's say that A dies tomorrow in a terrible window-washing accident.  And A's child is born 9 months later.  And A won't vest that interest until 24 years from now?  So void? 

Right?  ???

Correct that this is void, but i think the reasoning is a little off. A can't possibly give birth 9 months after her own death unless there are new medical practices I'm unaware of.



A could me male, married to C who became pregant on the day A died, 9 months later A, decesed, has a babay by his wife C.