Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: RAP question  (Read 3033 times)

1Lmania

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
RAP question
« on: April 25, 2009, 06:21:59 PM »
Hello everyone.  I am having trouble with the RAP.  Can anyone tell me if any of these conveyances violate the RAP?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!


Do any of these conveyances violate the Rule Against Perpetuities? 

1)   O conveys to A for life, then to As children for life, then to As grandchildren for life. 
2)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow, if any, for life, then to As   issue then living. 
3)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow for life, then to As children.
4)   By will, o devises Blackacre to Os widow for life, then to Os children who are then alive. 
5)   O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to As first child if he survives A by 21 years.  A has no children.   

upgrade

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 06:40:33 PM »
Quick crack at these...

1)   O conveys to A for life, then to As children for life, then to As grandchildren for life. 

Yes, after the conveyance A could have child X, A dies, A's children take their interests, 22 years pass, X has a child, all of A's children die

X's interest did not vest within 21 years

The conveyance becomes O to A for life, then to A's children for life
O holds a reversion in FSA

Changing the conveyance to ...then to A's grandchildren living at the time of A's death or tying it to the lives of A's children already born would solve this problem.

2)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow, if any, for life, then to As issue then living. 

No.
If A leaves a widow, her interest immediately vests and her life is the measuring life for the subsequent remainder interests
A's issue then living, to me, means those living at the time A's widow dies, which will vest upon her death
If A leaves no widow, the interests of A's issues then living vest immediately


3)   O conveys to A for life, then to As widow for life, then to As children.

No.  A's life is the measuring life for either the widow's interest of A's children (the class can not have new members after A's death)

4)   By will, o devises Blackacre to Os widow for life, then to Os children who are then alive. 

No. If O has a widow, hers will be the measuring life for the class of "O's children who are then alive"
If O has no widow, then the interests of O's children alive at O's death immediately (the class can not have new members after O's death)

5)   O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to As first child if he survives A by 21 years.  A has no children.   

No.  A is the measuring life and A's first child's interest will vest or fail within 21 years of A's death.


armyjag

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2009, 09:46:33 PM »
I think your solution as to 2 is incorrect. 
A's children have a contingent remainder until A's widow dies, so if A has a child after the conveyance, then you could go more than 21 years.

The difference with 3 is that the class closes at A's death.

Proving there is redemption in this world...

1Lmania

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2009, 09:49:09 PM »

I agree with Army Jag about #2:

I thinks this violates the rule because the contingent remainder to As issue- (i.e., As issue that are alive at the time of the widows death) might vest in As issue more than 21 years after any life in being at the time of the creation of the interest.  This is because the widow may have been born after the interest was created.  The contingent interest in As children is contingent on them being alive when the widow dies which may be more than 21 years after the death of any life in being at the creation of the interest.

upgrade

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2009, 10:20:21 PM »

I agree with Army Jag about #2:

I thinks this violates the rule because the contingent remainder to As issue- (i.e., As issue that are alive at the time of the widows death) might vest in As issue more than 21 years after any life in being at the time of the creation of the interest.  This is because the widow may have been born after the interest was created.  The contingent interest in As children is contingent on them being alive when the widow dies which may be more than 21 years after the death of any life in being at the creation of the interest.

I agree with your analysis. 

The fact that A could have a child after the conveyance is irrelevant, right?

1Lmania

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2009, 08:49:15 PM »
Yes, I think this point is irrelvant to the analysis. 

How would you state the title for # 5?  Would it be A has present possesory life estate, o has a reversion, and A's first child has a future contigent interest subject to a condition precedent? 

armyjag

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2009, 09:38:38 PM »
Yes, I think this point is irrelvant to the analysis. 

How would you state the title for # 5?  Would it be A has present possesory life estate, o has a reversion, and A's first child has a future contigent interest subject to a condition precedent? 

I think it's somewhat professor dependent, but we were told:
A has a life estate, O has a reversion in fee simple subject to executory limitation and A's first child to survive A by 21 years has a springing executory interest in fee simple
Proving there is redemption in this world...

upgrade

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2009, 09:44:07 PM »
5)   O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to As first child if he survives A by 21 years.  A has no children.

How would you state the title for # 5?  Would it be A has present possesory life estate, o has a reversion, and A's first child has a future contigent interest subject to a condition precedent?

A has a life estate in FSA
A's first child has a contingent remainder in FSA (contingent because of a condition precedent and possibly an ascertainability problem)
O has a reversion subject to springing executory limitation/interest

A's first child doesn't get the land until 21 years after A's death, so O will hold it for 21 years after A's death

Back to Crim...

1Lmania

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2009, 10:21:11 PM »
No, I don't think A child has a contigent remainder.  I think he has a springing executory interest  (not a remainder, since it is separated from the life estate by a "built-in time gap.")  Since the child's interest will not vest upon the natural termination of the preceding life estate, it cannot be classified as a remainder. 

armyjag

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2009, 10:37:28 PM »
Yeah, you can't have a CR after a nonfreehold estate.  Every supplement I've ever seen says that.
Proving there is redemption in this world...