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 A’s 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 A’s 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; O’s 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 Elizabeth’s descentants alive on the effective date of this well, then to B.
If reference is to
Q.E.I, B’s 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, it’s 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 A’s children who reach age 30. At the time of the conveyance, A is dead, and has two children ages 5 and 18.
OK; A can’t have any
more children so class is closed
9. O conveys Blackacre to A’s 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 old’s 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 wife’s grandchildren. At O’s 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
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 A’s death; B gets, if at all, within his own lifetime,
and by naming him the conveyance implies that he is alive now.
B’s interest is also
valid if FSA – widow could be born after conveyance, and B could die more
than 21 yrs before widow, B’s estate would take remotely. But B’s interest is best classified as a vested remainder. B’s FSA
interest doesn’t cut short any prior interest; it becomes possessory
with the mere passage of time. The RAP doesn’t apply to it at all, and it
is therefore valid.