Law School Discussion

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

Re: The Rule Against Perpetuities Makes Me Want to Throw My Book Out the Window
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2008, 09:43:12 PM »
Well, now I feel dumb. Thanks for the correction, Mathies. Yes, I guess a child of A could be born after A's death. I don't think that  changes either of my answers, though. We still can't guarantee the gift to the children in the first question or the gift to the grandchildren in the second question will vest within the period of limitations so I think they are both void.

As a side-note, does anyone know what kind of interest an unborn, but conceived, child can hold? If I simply gave a gift "to A's children" and A dies in the situation described by Mathies, with a conceived but unborn child. Would we say that child has a vested interest? or is it a springing executory interest that "springs" upon birth? I guess I'm just wondering if a fetus is considered a person capable of having interests in property upon conception or upon birth.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3678
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: The Rule Against Perpetuities Makes Me Want to Throw My Book Out the Window
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2008, 09:27:15 AM »
Well, now I feel dumb. Thanks for the correction, Mathies. Yes, I guess a child of A could be born after A's death. I don't think that  changes either of my answers, though. We still can't guarantee the gift to the children in the first question or the gift to the grandchildren in the second question will vest within the period of limitations so I think they are both void.

As a side-note, does anyone know what kind of interest an unborn, but conceived, child can hold? If I simply gave a gift "to A's children" and A dies in the situation described by Mathies, with a conceived but unborn child. Would we say that child has a vested interest? or is it a springing executory interest that "springs" upon birth? I guess I'm just wondering if a fetus is considered a person capable of having interests in property upon conception or upon birth.

Don't feel dumb. this stuff is confusing, and it does not help much when they call them A or B rather than Able or Betty, its been three years since I took property, but ins't there a contigant thing, where the vesting is contigant on the baby being viable?