Pg 14

Question 1

Is this interest valid under RAP?

“To A so long as the property is used for a church, then to B.”

Answer 1

• it is possible that B’s interest will not vest or fail within the perpetuities period, so it is void.
  – B’s whole executory limitation is excised and A has a fee simple absolute

*** executory interests are always void under RAP if the event that makes it a present interest has no time limit. The workaround is to use two transfers – contingent reversionary interests are not subject to RAP

Question 2

Is this interest valid under RAP?

“To A for life, remainder to his first son that becomes a clergyman.“

Answer 2

This is a contingent remainder because no son is currently a clergyman at transfer.

This remainder is indestructible and possibly will not vest or fail within the perpetuities period, so it is void under RAP and the transfer’s reversion in fee simple is indefeasible

Question 3

Is this interest valid under RAP?

“To A for life, remainder to A’s kids for life, and on the death of the last surviving kid, to A’s grandkids then living.“

Answer 3

– The remainder to A’s kids is valid because ultimate membership of the class is determined at A’s death +9 months
– but the contingent remainder in the grandkids is void because it is not certain to vest or fail in the perpetuities period
– The only useable lives in being here are A and A’s kids

Question 4

Is this interest valid under RAP?

“To A for life, remainder to A’s widow for her life, remainder to the kids of A living at the widow’s death.“

Answer 4

This is the case of the unborn widow:
- the remainder to A’s kids is void because they must survive A’s widow, who might not yet be born at the date of transfer and might outlive A and all of the kids by more than 21 years.
– The unborn widow is only an issue when O leaves a life estate to A and then a life estate to A’s widow, and then to A’s issue. If it was just a life estate to A’s widow, then to O’s issue, then it would not be a problem

***Watch out: just because a widow is involved does not create a violation of RAP. If someone grants to his own widow, then of course she is alive at his death. This only arises when you’re making a conveyance to someone else’s widow because that person could get married many times in his life, and his present wife may never be his widow.

Question 5

Is this interest valid under RAP?

“To A for life, remainder to the grandkids of A that reach 21.“

Answer 5

Fertile Octogenarian situation:

• The remainder to the grandkids is void if A is capable of having more kids after the transfer is made, since the remainder is not certain to vest or fail within 21 years after the death of A and all kids of A living at the date of transfer, who are the only relevant lives in being. If more kids are born after transfer, they will not be lives in being and may have grandkids of A that won’t reach 21 within 21 years.
• The court presumes that A is capable of having more kids regardless about his/her age or gender.

Question 6

Is this interest valid under RAP?

“ A grants property to his descendants at death of the last survivors of X, Y, and Z.“

Answer 6

This doesn’t violate RAP because those three people are just lives in being, not beneficiaries. The only thing to remember is that the measuring lives cannot be so numerous that it is impractical to keep track of them

Question 7

Are vested future interests freely transferable?

Answer 7

Yes except when they are subject to a valid restriction on alienation by the person that created the interest

Question 8

What is the equitable doctrine of Cy Pres?

Answer 8

Courts can reduce a period of more than 21 years in gross or an age contingency of more than 21 years to 21 years so that an interest that would otherwise be void for remoteness will either vest or fail within the RAP period