Property

Rule against Perpetuities problems and answers

1. O conveys Blackacre to A, but only for so long as Blackacre is used for school purposes, then to B.

Void; A: has FSSEL, B has EI

2. O conveys Blackacre to A, but only for so long as Blackacre is used for school purposes. O separately conveys his interest to B

OK; O has a possibility of reverter, which is not covered; he conveyes it to B. B has a possibility of reverter

3. O devises Blackacre to A, but should liquor be sold on the premises within 21 years of the death of any child of As born before my death, then to B

OK; A: FSSEL b/c the next taker is a third person; B has shifting EI

4. O gives Blackacre to A, but should liquor be sold on the premises within 21 years of the death of any child of As boprn before my death, then to B

Void, unless child now; A: FSSEL

5. O devises Blackacre to all my grandchildren born within the next 40 years. Grantor has no grandchildren.

GC have springing EIs in FSA; Os heirs have FS subject to EI, until first grandchild is born w/in 40-year period. When O dies, all children will be known [except for those unborn]; all children will be born w/in 9 mos. after death; Any GC will be born to one of these children. Children are measuring lives. So GC interests vest well within a measuring life

6. A devises Blackacre to A, but should liquor be sold on the premises within 21 years of the death of Al Gore, then to B

OK; Al Gore is life in being

7. O devises Blackacre to A, but should liquor be sold on the premises within 21 years of the death of all Queen Elizabeths descentants alive on the effective date of this well, then to B.

If reference is to Q.E.I, Bs EI is valid because it either vests or not within 21 years, since no descendants of Q.E.I are alive on effective date. If reference is to Q.E.II, its okay because they are lives in being, not too numerous to count, and conditions is guaranteed to be satisfied or not within 21 years of those lives in being

8. O conveyes Blackacre to As children who reach age 30. At the time of the conveyance, A is dead, and has two children ages 5 and 18.

OK; A cant have any more children so class is closed

9. O conveys Blackacre to As children who reach age 23. At the time of the conveyance, A is still alive, and has three children, ages 1, 10, and 24

OK. Class closes per rule of convenience now; 24 year olds interest becomes possessory on date of conveyance; younger kids interest become possessory when they reach 23, if they do. The 1-yr old is a measuring life

10. O devises Blackacre to my wife, W, for life, then to her children for their lives, and upon the death of the last child, to my wifes grandchildren. At Os death, wife is 80, have daughter D and son S, but no grandchildren

Void. W could have another child

11. O devises Blackacre to the LS at Berkeley, but if premises are not used for legal education to Stanford LS

OK. Charity to charity

12. O conveys Blackacre to A for so long as premises are not used to sell liquor then to Berkeley LS

Void; not charity to charity

13. O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to his widow for life and then 30 years after termination of last life estate to B for life; would result change if remainder to B was FSA?

All are OK if B gets in LE widow (whoever she turns out to be) gets upon death of A, which must happen within 21 yrs of As death; B gets, if at all, within his own lifetime, and by naming him the conveyance implies that he is alive now.

Bs interest is also valid if FSA widow could be born after conveyance, and B could die more than 21 yrs before widow, Bs estate would take remotely. But Bs interest is best classified as a vested remainder. Bs FSA interest doesnt cut short any prior interest; it becomes possessory with the mere passage of time. The RAP doesnt apply to it at all, and it is therefore valid.

The necessary classification of B's interest in this problem is uncertain. See William B. Stoebuck & Dale A. Whitman, The Law of Property § 3.18 at 121 (3d ed. 2000) (little authority for how RAP applies to springing executory interest becoming possessory at end of a term of years following reversion in grantor, but RAP should not apply because substantially equivalent to rested remainder in fee simple following 25-year term; probable that court would construe as vested remainder to avoid invalidation under RAP).