Further reflections on Problem 1, page 182

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

In our class discussion on 20 February, we agreed that the executory interest in B is invalid because it violates the Rule Against Perpetuities ("RAP"). We had some debate about what the interests are, after application of the Rule. I took the position that A has a fee simple absolute. Some of you took the position that A has a fee simple determinable and the grantor, O, has a possibility of reverter. Your position is justified by the norm that reconstruction of the interests after application of the RAP should effectuate, insofar as possible, the intentions of the grantor. The intentions here clearly were to "take it away" from A if Blackacre is no longer used for school purposes. The only way to do that is to recognize a possibility of reverter in the grantor. My position is justified by the policy preference to minimize clouds on title, which would be perpetual if the grantor has a possibility of reverter. Which result is "correct" depends on the relative force of the competing policy arguments. I think we fought to a standoff on this one. I may have declared victory prematurely.