Other Rules Furthering Marketability by destroying contingent future interests

Question 1

Destructibility of contingent remainders

Answer 1

Rule = at common law the contingent remainder was destroyed if it was still contingent by the time that the preceding estate ended even if it was possible to vest at a later time
*This rule has since been abolished

Question 2

Doctrine of Merger

Answer 2

Under common law if the life estate and the next vested estate in fee simple come into the hands of one person the lesser estate is merged into the larger
*This doctrine is still in effect

Question 3

Rule in Shelleys Case

Answer 3

A. At common law the rule would apply only when O conveys, “To A for life, then on A’s death to A’s heirs” A is alive
I. Under S.C = A has F.S
II. Modern Rule = A has a life estate, As as yet unknown heirs have a contingent remainder in FS, and O has a reversion in FS because A might die without heirs
Has to be this exact language otherwise S.C doesn’t apply

Question 4

Doctrine of Worthier Title

Answer 4

• Applies when O who is still alive, tries to create a future interest in his heirs.
  EX: O who is alive conveys, “To A for life, then to O’s heirs”
  1) According to common law doctrine the contingent remainder in Os heirs is void therefore A has a life estate and O has a reversion in FS
  2) Without this doctrine, A has a life estate, and O’s heirs have a contingent remainder in FS, O has a reversion in FS