Law School Discussion

Perpetuities period

Perpetuities period
« on: February 18, 2014, 02:38:02 AM »
M creates an irrevocable inter vivos trust : "To D for life, then to my first child to reach age 25."
M has three children at the time of the trust H (10), D(15) AND L (20). Who holds what interest and why?

Where the textbook says: although it appears that all three will reach 25 within perpetuities period you cannot use any of them to definitely prove it because each could die before reaching 25, and therefore "there is no validating life among lives in being"

What does validating life mean here?

Another question is :
L deeds her house as : "to A, but if H is ever elected President of US, to H", I thought the interest would not vest during perpetuities period, because there is a chance there H would become president but after the perpetuities period. but once again I am wrong. The textbook says : "The express divesting condition is tied to H, and H is a validating life, and the executory interest must become possessory  during H's life, and alternatively it is impossible to conceive a scenario where the executory interest would become possessory but only after the perpetuities period", and therefore the executory does not violate the RAP.

I am completely puzzled....

Re: Perpetuities period
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2014, 09:35:18 AM »
The RAP is a perpetual headache, and that's about it.

Law schools spend so much time torturing students with this medieval artifact, and the irony is that most states have simply enacted statutes to deal with the problem. My property professor and my wills and trusts professor were both obsessed with the RAP, and I spent countless hours trying to identify validating lives and pregnant octogenarians. Then, when I took the bar exam, the RAP came up a handful of times on a few MBEs and that was it.

This is a good example of what's wrong with a lot of legal education. It often has very little real world application.