Chapter 5: Hindering and Helping Alienation Flashcards
Rule In Shelley’s Case
-When Oscar conveyed, “Orangeacre to Charlie for life, then to Charlie’s closest relatives and heirs,” is the Rule in Shelley’s Case triggered in jurisdictions that still recognize it?
-The Rule in Shelley’s Case states that if O conveys a life estate to A with a remainder to A’s heirs, A’s heirs are not contingent remaindermen (unascertained beneficiaries) and do not take anything. Rather, A takes a remainder, a future interest in a transferor that may come into possession upon the natural termination of the preceding estate.
Legal Consequences: Common Law Merger
-What are the legal consequences of applying the Rule in Shelleys’ Case under the common law and not applying it modernly?
-Under the common law, A’s heirs take nothing and A takes a remainder. Because A is identifiable and the remainder is not subject to a condition precedent A’s remainder is a vested remainder. Because A owned the life estate and also owned the vested remainder, under the merger doctrine, the two come together and A owns a fee simple
Who owns Blueacre? Discuss.
Rule in Shelleys’ Case
-Does a devise, “To Adam for life, then to Adam’s closest relatives,” trigger the Rule in Shelley’s Case, if the jurisdiction recognizes the doctrine?
-The Rule in Shelley’s Case states that if O conveys or T devises, “to A for life, then to A’s heirs,” A’s heirs take nothing; rather, A takes a remainder. The Rule in Shelley’s Case has been abrogated in most jurisdiction.
Consequences/Merger
-Assuming the rule does apply, and alternatively does not apply, what are the respective consequences?
-If the rule applies, A’s heirs (closest family members) take nothing and A takes a remainder; if the remainder is not contingent, A takes a vested remainder. Then, under the doctrine of merger, because A owns a life estate and a vested remainder, A owns a fee simple. On the other hand, if the rule is not applicable, A owns a life estate and the heirs own a contingent remainder with a reversion in testator’s heirs.
Spendthrift Trust
-Did Tess create a spendthrift trust when she devised cash in trust, with the provision, “No beneficiary of this trust shall be allowed to anticipate or assign his right to future income or principal, and no creditor shall be allowed to attach any beneficiary’s right to future income or principal”?
-A spendthrift trust is one in which the beneficiary cannot transfer his right to future income or principal and creditors cannot attach a beneficiary’s right to future income or principal.
Necessities/Medical
-Was Hank’s hair transplant a necessary medical procedure?
-One who provides necessary medical procedures can attach a beneficiary’s right to future income, notwithstanding the spendthrift provisions. As to when a procedure is necessary is dependent upon all the circumstances.
