Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: RAP question  (Read 3020 times)

armyjag

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2009, 10:42:31 PM »
Additionally, the condition precedent requirement of the contingent remainder is one that must be prior to the end of the prior estate.  it's impossible for that to happen with this language, so I think that also shows it's executory interest?
Proving there is redemption in this world...

1Lmania

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2009, 04:12:04 PM »
Me and my study parter disagree about the answer to the following future interest question.  Which answer do you guys think is better?

O to A for life, then to B and her heirs.     

Thereafter in 1980, AP enters adversely and possesses and improves the property in a manner necessary to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession.  In 1988, however, A transfers her interest to X.  Assuming the period prescribed by the statute of limitation is 10 years, which would be the correct way to state the title in 1994? 

Does AP hold a life estate for the life of A, and B holds a vested remainder in fee simple? 

Or

Does X hold a life estate for the life of A, B holds a vested remainder in fee simple, and APís interest will not vest until 1998? 

armyjag

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2009, 05:19:17 PM »
I'd say something, but we don't cover AP in Property 1
Proving there is redemption in this world...

upgrade

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2009, 07:51:39 PM »
Me and my study parter disagree about the answer to the following future interest question.  Which answer do you guys think is better?

O to A for life, then to B and her heirs.     

Thereafter in 1980, AP enters adversely and possesses and improves the property in a manner necessary to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession.  In 1988, however, A transfers her interest to X.  Assuming the period prescribed by the statute of limitation is 10 years, which would be the correct way to state the title in 1994? 

Does AP hold a life estate for the life of A, and B holds a vested remainder in fee simple? 

Or

Does X hold a life estate for the life of A, B holds a vested remainder in fee simple, and APís interest will not vest until 1998? 


Two issues here. 

First, A's rights are encumbered by AP's adverse possession.  A can only transfer the rights he has and under the derivative title principle, X's rights are also encumbered by ripening adverse possession claim.  The clock does not reset when X receives possession, AP meets the requirement for AP in 1990.  This is not tacking, btw.

Second, I'm not sure how to state the title in 1994 without more facts.  If AP has sued to quiet title to the land, then he clearly has a life estate pur autre vie using A's life.  I'm not sure if he is automatically granted a life estate or if there is a procedural requirement, though.

1Lmania

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2009, 08:11:54 PM »
Right.  I think his life estate pur autra vie (with A being the measuring life) automatically ripens in 1990 without the need for additional procedures. 

upgrade

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2009, 08:27:40 PM »
Right.  I think his life estate pur autra vie (with A being the measuring life) automatically ripens in 1990 without the need for additional procedures. 

That's what I was thinking, but what happens if AP satisfies the statutory requirement then leaves the land for 5 years.  Does AP still have a life estate 5 years later?  How would subsequent purchasers of the life estate know that A didn't have title to the land?  It seems inequitable for people who do search the records to not be able to find this information and have no ability to adjust their behavior.  I guess that's what title insurance is for, though.

hawvaad2008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2009, 01:00:40 AM »
5)   O conveys Whiteacre to A for life, then to Aís 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...

A definitely doesn't have a contingent remainder because he does not divest A's life estate...he's divesting the grantor's interest. 

A has a life estate..A's first child has springing executory interest...O has a reversion subject to an executory limitation. 
Accepted: Minnesota
Waitlisted:
Rejected:
Pending: Iowa, Wisconsin

hawvaad2008

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: RAP question
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2009, 01:05:29 AM »
Me and my study parter disagree about the answer to the following future interest question.  Which answer do you guys think is better?

O to A for life, then to B and her heirs.     

Thereafter in 1980, AP enters adversely and possesses and improves the property in a manner necessary to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession.  In 1988, however, A transfers her interest to X.  Assuming the period prescribed by the statute of limitation is 10 years, which would be the correct way to state the title in 1994? 

Does AP hold a life estate for the life of A, and B holds a vested remainder in fee simple? 

Or

Does X hold a life estate for the life of A, B holds a vested remainder in fee simple, and APís interest will not vest until 1998? 


AP has a life estate measured by the life of A.  B has a vested remainder in fee simple absolute.  When A dies, B has a fee simple absolute and the SOL starts over for AP if he wishes to adversely possess against B.   
Accepted: Minnesota
Waitlisted:
Rejected:
Pending: Iowa, Wisconsin