****ING Rule Against Perpetuities...! Can any lawyers help me out a bit here?!

[ravenvii]

I'm having a hard time understanding the rule against perpetuities. Every time I think I get it, I got a MBE practice question wrong, it's maddening!

Okay, so the rule against perpetuities is life in being plus 21 years, right?

So consider this one: a grantor executes and delivers a deed to his daughter conveying his ranch as follows: "To my daughter for life, but if my daughter dies survived by her husband and children, then to my daughter's husband for life, with the remainder in fee simple to my daughter's children; but if my daughter dies survived by her husband and no children, then to my son in fee simple."

Okay? And BarBri's answer says that this does NOT violate the rule against perpetuities. A huge WTF to me, because I thought it *does* violate the rule.

The way I see it, what if the daughter divorces her husband, and marries someone very young, who was NOT born at the time the deed was delivered? Then the life in being is the daughter, and the part that gives the deed to her husband for life obviously has a possibility of extending beyond 21 year?! Otherwise known as the "unborn widow problem."

Okay, if any of you understand the rule against perpetuities, please explain to me why the above deed is NOT violative of the rule?

Mere thanks would not suffice for anyone who could help me understand this stupid rule.

 

[stonyc]

*backs away slowly from thread...*

 

[iJohnHenry]

Mere thanks would not suffice for anyone who could help me understand this stupid rule.

Was there a lawyer involved?

*backs away slowly from thread...*

This. (Sorry, but this time it is fullly appropriate.)

 

[Al Capone]

"To my daughter for life, but if my daughter dies survived by her husband and children, then to my daughter's husband for life, with the remainder in fee simple to my daughter's children; but if my daughter dies survived by her husband and no children, then to my son in fee simple."

Okay, so the Rule Against Perpetuities is for executory interests, its quite simple really - there is an A and a B and B can never (except for the rule of 2 charities exception) get their executory interest longer then 21 years after the death of A. So lets run both scenarios, in neither scenario is what I just stated above allowed...

"To my daughter for life, but if my daughter dies survived by her husband and children, then to my daughter's husband for life, with the remainder in fee simple to my daughter's children;"

In this scenario A is either the husband or daughter, depending on which is alive, and the remainder is to daughters children (B), explain why you would think this is a violation... you probably read into it as to daughter, then to husband, then to children when it was really saying to daughter or husband..

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm no lawyer btw..

Scenario 2 "but if my daughter dies survived by her husband and no children, then to my son in fee simple.""

This just says A is the son, so I don't believe in this scenario there even is an executory interest and as you know the rule against perp only applies to executory interests, in this scenario property goes from the grantor to the son in fee simple, again, I'm going to be an L1 next year but I've been listening to the barbri/pmbr tapes enough to think I'm on the right track, I'd like to hear other peoples input. Subbed thread.

ps if you have an excerpt of the entire Q that would help a lot.. i feel likes somethings missing but i think i was on the right track.. remember the bar is a reading comprehension test more then anything else

 

[ucfgrad93]

*backs away slowly from thread...*

Right there by your side.

 

[iStudentUK]

I know a little about it (studying law, your thread is making me have Vietnam style flash-backs to that lecture!). I'm in the UK, don't know where you are but the rules are similar in many areas.

(For the consideration of remoteness of vesting the UK has switched to 125 years rather than life in being + 21 years, which is used for purpose trusts).

One thing that got me thinking was the word "husband". The settlor has been impersonal throughout. Does husband refer to any man married to his daughter or the specific man at the time of writing? Worth a thought.

I agree with Al Capone, the instruction seems to imply that-

If the daughter is alive and receives the life interest and subsequently dies, the children then get title absolutely regardless of the state of the husband.

If the daughter dies and the husband and children are alive, the husband gets the life interest before going to the children absolutely.

If the ranch goes to the son there is no problem as it is an absolute transfer.


Thanks, this was a good revision exercise! Hope it helps.