O conveys "to A and his heirs
* A: fee simple absolute * No future interest.
O conveys "to A for so long as Blackacre is used only for residential purposes
* Words of purchase - "to A"* Words of limitation - "so long as", this makes it a fee simple determinable* Future interest is retained by O - reverter. (NOT reversion)* How long does this last? Forever - the reverter interest is 'retained' not created, so the rule of perpetuities doesn't apply (don't need to know the rule)
O conveys "to A on condition that Blackacre shall be used only for residential purposes, and if it ceases to be used for residential purposes, then O shall have a right to enter and terminate A's interest
* Present estate: Fee simple subject to condition subsequent* Future estate: O has a right of entry (for condition broken)
O conveys "to Town Library Board so long as the premises are used for library purposes then to Children's Hospital
* TLB: Present estate: Fee simple subject to executory limitation (You can abbreviate these on the test (FSSEL)* CH: Executory interest: Executory interest in fee simple absolute (DON'T say just fee simple absolute) * O: No reversion possible.
to A for life
* Present Estate: a life estate, * Reversion: with a reversion to O when A dies.
to A for 20 years
* Present Estate: a term of years estate for A. * Reversion: with a reversion to O
to A for life, then to B and her heirs
* Present Estate: a life estate* Remainder: vested remainder in fee simple absolute. * No reversion because transferring the same quantum. * What if B dies before A and has no heirs? * Not possible, everyone has heirs.
to A for life, then to B and heirs of her body
* Present Estate: a life estate* Remainder: vested remainder in fee simple tail* Reversion: Yes there is a reversion - if B and all her descendants are dead.
to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B attains the age of 21 before A dies.
* A is alive; B is 15. * Present Estate: a life estate* Remainder: Contingent remainder in fee simple absolute * Condition precedent * Reversion? * According to definition above, then no reversion possible. (since B's interest is the same quantum) * But because contingent, then there is a reversion. * Destructability of contingent remainders? (PROF said to write this down, no idea why)* What happens if B turns 21 while A yet lives? * Remainder is now a vested remainder in fee simple absolute, * So now there is no longer a reversion.
to A and his heirs, but if A dies without issue surviving him, to B and her heirs
* Present interest: Fee simple subject to an executory limitation* Future interest for B: Is it an executory interest or a contingent remainder? * The estate could go on forever, there isn't a natural termination of it. * It's an executory interest in fee simple absolute. * DIFFERENT from a fee simple tail with remainder - because B doesn't get it when A's heirs finally die off. * Reversion - none, because it ultimate gives to B a fee simple absolute. * Shifting - goes from one transferee to another.
to Town Library Board so long as the premises are used for library purposes, then to Children's Hospital
* Present interest: Fee simple subject to an executory limitation * Basically when you are giving a future interest to a transferee, there isn't a distinction between fee simple determinable (durational) and condition subsequent. * B: Executory interest in fee simple absolute. * Reversion - none
to A upon her marriage to B
* Present interest: * Fee simple subject to condition subsequent? No, because it wouldn't go back to the grantor. The grantor doesn't 'retain' the interest. * Answer: Fee simple subject to executory limitation* B: Executory interest in fee simple absolute.
to A for life, then to B if B gives A a proper funeral.
* Present interest: Life estate for A * Remainder: Contingent remainder in fee simple absolute for B * WRONG! * There must be a gap between A's death and B's giving of a proper funeral. * So there is an automatic reversion to O. * This reversion is in fee simple subject to an executory limitation. * B has an executory interest?
to A for life, then to B [and his heirs] " (same thing with or without heirs added)
* B's interest is a remainder, and it's indefeasibly vested, and in fee simple absolute. * No condition subsequent * Not subject to open - there is only one B. * Assume: * A sells his interest in Blackacre to C. C dies without a will while A is still alive. Who has the present right to possess Blackacre? * What does C get from A? * C get's a life estate subject to A's life. (pur autre vie CB 97) * So C's heirs get the life estate, still subject to B's indefeasibly vested remainder.
To A for life, then to A's children and their heirs
* And their heirs is just fee simple absolute, so yeah. * A's interest is a life estate* B's interest is a vested remainder subject to open. * The class of children closes at A's death.
to A for life, then to the children of B" B is alive and has one child, named C. Then A dies while B is still alive. What is the state of the title? Can children that come later claim something?
* Rule of convenience: The class "children of B" closes at A's death under this. * When A and B alive - C has vested remainder subject to open* When B dies - C has an indefeasibly vested remainder* When A dies - C has a fee simple absolute. * What if B has two children, C and D, C dies, then A dies. Do the heirs of C get equal access to take? * It's ambiguous, but probably.
to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B dies under the age of 21, to C and her heirs." B is age 15.
* A has life estate. * B has a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple subject (subject to executory limitation? - he says don't describe it this way, because it makes it more confusing, even though it's right) (note commas around second phrase, conditional language comes afterwards?)* C has an executory interest in fee simple absolute* Is there a reversion? No, because C's executory interest
to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B dies under the age of 21, to C and her heirs." B is age 21. State of title?
* A has a life estate. * B has an indefeasibly vested remainder in fee simple absolute* C has nothing* No reversion.
to A for life, then to B, but if B does not survive A, then to C.
* Conditional language follows B, grant to B (stopping at comma) looks like a vested remainder, therefore the conditional language is a condition subsequent. * A has a life estate* B has a vested remainder in fee simple (subject to executory limitation) subject to divestment * C has executory interest * No reversion
to A for life, then to B if she survives A, otherwise to C.
* Conditional language is tied to the B. Reading comma to comma, the whole phrase looks like B isn't granted a vested remainder* A has a life estate* B has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute* C also has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. * Note - these are alternate contingent remainders. This is important in thinking about whether or not there is a reversion. * Reversion: * Apparently there is a reversion. HOW? * It's the stupid possibility that life estates can end before A actually dies, like if A commits acts of waste or something. Since B has a contingent remainder, then it reverts back to the grantor, and we wait and see what happens to A and B before dying * So, alternate contingent remainders DO actually create a reversion to O.
to A for life, then to B if B reaches 21". A dies before B is 21.
Destructability of contingent (but not vested) remainders (in small minority of jurisdictions)* In some jurisdictions, if A dies before B is 21, then B's interest is destroyed. * In majority, land reverts back to O subject to an executory limitation. * ON THE EXAM - remember the majority rule, don't remember the odd rule.
to A for life, then to B for life, then to C and her heirs if C survives A and B
* A has a life estate. * B has an indefeasibly vested remainder for life* C has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. * There is a possible reversion to O. Only if B forfeits his life estate. Or if C dies before A and B.
H devises "to my wife W for life or until she remarries
W - life estate subject to condition subsequent? * WRONG. it's a life estate determinable - ("until" language is durational)* So there is a possibility of reverter. * There is also a reversion in fee simple absolute.
H devises "to my wife, W, for her use and benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.
* W - fee simple determinable* Possibility of reverter for H.
H devises "to my wife, W, for her use and benefit, so long as she remains unmarried." Residuary clause in H's will to D, a daughter by a previous marriage. W cohabits with but does not marry A. Then W dies and devises all her property to A. Who gets it, A or D?
* A. W had fee simple determinable. * H didn't use the magic words "for life" which would have made it a life estate. * So D had only received the possibility of reverter.
to A for life, then to A's children and their heirs, but if at A's death he is not survived by any children, then to B and her heirs." A is alive and has no children.
* A has life estate. * A's children have a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute * because the children are unascertainable. * B also has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. * So there is a reversion.
to A for life, then to A's children and their heirs, but if at A's death he is not survived by any children, then to B and her heirs." Two years later, twins C and D are born to A. State of title?
* A has a life estate* C and D have a vested remainder subject to open and divestment, in fee simple. * B has an executory interest in fee simple absolute. * O has no reversion
to A for life, then to A's children and their heirs, but if at A's death he is not survived by any children, then to B and her heirs." Two years later, twins C and D are born to A. Suppose that C dies during A's lifetime, then A dies, survived by D and B? Who owns Blackacre?
* D and C's heirs own Blackacre. (As long as D isn't C's heirs) * A's life estate is terminated* A's children now have a possessory interest. * So B's interest is cut off.
to A for life, then to such of A's children as survive him, but if none of A's children survive him, to B and her heirs." A is alive and has two children, C and D.
* A has a life estate. * C and D have contingent remainders in fee simple absolute* Don't say subject to open, because only vested things are subject to open. * B has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute* O has a reversion.
to A for life, then to such of A's children as survive him, but if none of A's children survive him, to B and her heirs." A is alive and has two children, C and D. C dies, then A dies? Who owns Blackacre?
D alone owns Blackacre, not C's heirs. Contrast with above. So the language really matters.
to A for life, then to b and her heirs, but if A is survived at his death by any children, then to such surviving children and their heirs." A is alive and has two children, C and D
* A has a life estate* B has a vested remainder, subject to divestment* C and D have an executory interest (cuts short B's interest) * O: no reversion
to A for life, then to b and her heirs, but if A is survived at his death by any children, then to such surviving children and their heirs." A is alive and has two children, C and D. What if C dies and then A dies?
* D is alive when A dies, so that divests B's interest. * C and D have to be surviving children in order to get it. * So C's heirs don't get it, but D gets it entirely.
T devises $10k "to my cousin, Don Little, if and when he survives his wife
* T's estate: fee simple subject to executory limitation* Don Little: springing executory interest in fee simple absolute.
to A for life, then to B for life, then to C's heirs
* A has a life estate* B has an indefeasibly vested remainder for life* C's heirs have a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. * Reversion to O, B might commit waste
to A upon her first wedding anniversary
* O has a present interest in fee simple subject to executory limitation* A has an executory interest in fee simple absolute. * Because it's created in a grantee not in a grantor.
to A for 10 years, then to such of A's children as attain 21". A and O are alive at the time of the conveyance. A has two children, X and Y, 20 and 17
* A has term of years estate* X and Y have contingent remainders in fee simple absolute. * Remainder or executory interest? * Remainder, because they are capable of becoming possessory at the natural termination of the prior estate. * Why contingent? * There is a condition precedent - children must attain 21. * O has a reversion (yes, if condition precedent not met)
to A for 10 years, then to such of A's chidlren as attain 21" A and O are alive at the time of the conveyance. A has two children, X and Y, 22 and 17
* A: term of years estate* X has a vested remainder subject to open in fee simple* Y has an executory interest in FSA* No reversion * Even if A's estate ends early (waste or something), it will go to X because X is vested. * Does the rule of convenience apply to a term of years? * What if A's term ends and X has turned 21 but Y hasn't. Does Y still have an executory interest? * Seems like no, by analogy, it would seem that the class would close. * Prof says he doesn't know what the case law says, but assume that it would close so we only have to remember one rule.
to A for 10 years, then to such of A's children as attain 21". A and O alive, A has 2 children, X dies after turning 22, Y is 19. O is still alive
* A: term of years estate.* X's heirs: vested remainder in fee simple subject to open. * Because X was vested as soon as he turned 21, nothing changes when he dies. * Y: executory interest in fee simple. * No reversion
to A for life, then to A's children". A and O alive at the time, A has one child X.
* A: life estate* X has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to open. * No reversion
to A for life, then to A's children." A and O alive at the time of conveyance, A has children X and Y, then A dies, survived by X, Y and O.
* X and Y have fee simple absolute. * class is closed since A has died. * No reversion
to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B marries Z, then to C and his heirs
* A: life estate, * B: vested remainder in fee simple subject to divestment * Why remainder? * transfers after end of another estate. * Why vested? * condition subsequent, since it follows transfer, see comma * we know who the takers are. * C: executory interest in fee simple. * No reversion
A for life, then to B and heirs so long as Blackacre is organically farmed.
* A: life estate. * B: vested remainder in fee simple determinable * O: Possibility of reverter.
to A if she graduates from college
* O has present interest in fee simple subject to executory limitation* A has an executory interest in fee simple absolute.