Estates in Land - Transactions Flashcards
Identify words of Purchase/Limitation:
O conveys Blackacre to A for ten years, remainder to B for life, remainder to the Church of the Seven Rays its successors and assigns, so long as the premises shall be used for church purposes.
Purchase:
- “To A”
- “To B”
- “to the church of the Seven Rays”
Limitation:
- “for 10 years”
- “remainder…for life”
- “remainder…its successors and assigns so long as the premises shall be used for church purposes”
Identify words of Purchase/Limitation:
O conveys Blackacre to A and his heirs, but if A shall die without issue living at her death, to the heirs of B.
Purchase:
- “To A”
- “To the heirs of B”
Limitation:
- “and his heirs, but if A shall die without Issue living at her death”
- “and her heirs” (fee simple)
O conveys Blackacre to A and his heirs.
A has a fee simple absolute
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to Greenpeace, its successors and assigns, so long as the premises shall be used for environmental purposes.
Greenpeace has a fee simple determinable
O has a possibility of reverter in fee simple absolute
O conveys Blackacre to A and his heirs, but if the premises shall be used for the sale of drugs then O may re-enter and repossess the premises.
A has a fee simple subject to conditions subsequent
O has power of termination and a right of entry
O conveys Blackacre to A for Life.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
O has a reversion in fee simple
O conveys Blackacre to A for life and in the event of A’s death to B and her heirs.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
B has a vested remainder in fee simple
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B and her heirs.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
B has a vested remainder in fee simple
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B for five years
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
B has a vested remainder in a tenancy for a term of 5 years
O has a reversion in fee simple
O conveys Blackacre to A for life. A transfers all A’s interest to B.
A has nothing
B has a life estate pur autre vie (for the life of another) measured by A’s life
O has a reversion in fee simple
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B and the heirs of her body.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
B has a vested remainder in fee simple
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to the heirs of B. B is alive.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
B’s heirs have a contingent remainder in fee simple
O - depends on jurisdiction
- if contingent remainder is destroyed, O has a reversion in fee simple
- if contingent remainder is recognized, O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to A’s children and their heirs. A has 1 child, B.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
A’s children and their heirs have a vested remainder in fee simple, subject to open
B has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to partial divestment if A has more children
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, remainder to such of A’s issue as survive him.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
Such of A’s issue as survive him have a contingent remainder in fee simple
O - depends on jurisdiction
- if contingent remainder is destroyed, O has a reversion in fee simple
- if contingent remainder is recognized, O has a reversion in fee simple subject to defeasance
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to A’s children and their heirs. At the time of the conveyance, A is living with two children B and C. Then A has another child D. After that A dies.
Before A dies:
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
A’s children have a vested remainder in fee simple, subject to open
O has nothing
After A dies:
A has nothing - dead
B, C & D each have a 1/3 interest in fee simple
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to A’s children who shall reach 21. A’s oldest child, B, is 17.
A has a life estate measured by A’s life
A’s children who shall reach 21 have a contingent remainder in fee simple
O has a reversion or reversion subject to defeasance
After the Statute of Uses, O conveys Blackacre to A and his heirs when A marries.
A has a springing executory interest in fee simple when A marries.
O has a fee simple subject to A springing executory interest in A in fee simple when A marries
After the Statute of Uses, O conveys Blackacre to B and her heirs, but if Blackacre is used for non-residential purposes, then to C forever.
B has a fee simple subject to a shifting executory interest in C if Blackacre is used for non-residential purposes
C has a shifting executory interest in fee simple if Blackacre is used for non-residential purposes
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A and B as joint tenants. B dies leaving an heir, H.
A has a fee simple absolute
B has nothing - dead
H has nothing
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A, B, C and their heirs. A dies leaving an heir, H.
A has nothing - dead
B, C & H are tenants in common - each with a 1/3 undivided interest in fee simple
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A and B as joint tenants. A transfers A’s interest to C.
B & C are tenants in common with each having a 1/2 undivided interest in fee simple
A has nothing
O has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A, B and C as joint tenants. A then conveys her interest to D. Then B dies leaving an heir H.
D has an undivided 1/3 interest in fee simple as a tenant in common with C
C has an undivided 2/3 interest in fee simple as a tenant in common with D
O has nothing
A has nothing
B has nothing - dead
H has nothing
O conveys Blackacre to A and B as Tenants by the Entirety. At the time of the conveyance A and B are engaged to be married. Three months later they marry.
A and B each have an undivided 1/2 interest in fee simple as tenants in common
O has nothing
In Hawaii after the Sawada case, Blackacre is held by H and W as Tenants by the Entirety. H and W are married. H gets into debt and a creditor of H, X, sues H to reach Blackacre to satisfy the debt. Will X succeed? Why or why not?
The creditor X, will not succeed. In Hawaii, after the Sawada case, the H is in the same position as the W was at common law. At common law, the W could not alienate her ½ undivided interest in the whole in Blackacre. Since a creditor can only “go after” property that a debtor spouse could alienate, and since the H is now treated in Hawaii for debtor-creditor purposes the same as the W under common law, H may not unilaterally alienate Blackacre and the creditor of H cannot “go after” Blackacre to satisfy the debt owed by the debtor spouse H.
In New York, Blackacre is held by H and W as Tenants by the Entirety and H and W are married. W gets into debt and a creditor of W, X, sues to reach Blackacre to satisfy W’ debt. Will X succeed? Why or why not?
Yes, X will succeed. New York courts put the W in the same position as the H was at common law. Since, at common law, the H could alienate property held by H and W in a tenancy by the entirety the creditors of W can “go after” W’s interest in Blackacre except for W’s right of survivorship.
