PUT ASSIGNMENT #4 IN ENVELOPE ON CHAIR

1. PUT ASSIGNMENT #4 IN ENVELOPE ON CHAIR Greatest Hits of 1790 PERFORMANCES 1979-80 Philharmonia Virtuosi of New York Richard Kapp, Conductor

2. WARM-UP/REVIEW Terminology

3. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK • Workbook: Adds language to define nature of future interests in grantor. E.g., • Reversion in Fee Simple Absolute • Poss. Of Reverter in Fee Simple Absolute

4. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK • Workbook: Adds language to define nature of future interests in grantor. E.g., • Reversion in Fee Simple Absolute • Poss. Of Reverter in Fee Simple Absolute • My Test Questions: Only will add this sort of language for remainders

5. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK • Workbook: Describes all present possessory estates as a “Possessory Estate in …” Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estate, etc.

6. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK • Workbook: Describes all present possessory estates as a “Possessory Estate in …” Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estate, etc. • My Test Questions: Will not use the italicized phrase.

7. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK • Workbook: Describes all present possessory estates as a “Possessory Estate in …” Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estate, etc. • Maybe there to help you remember important rule: You can have only one present possessory estate at any given time with respect to a particular parcel of land.

8. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK Defeasible fee in the form of a Fee Simple Determinable BUT with the future interest in third party: • Me (& Restatement): “Fee Simple on Executory Limitation” • Workbook: “Fee Simple Determinable” (See Workbook p.72 fn19)

9. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK I will post (in section on e-mail Qs & responses) any other relevant inconsistencies or ambiguities regarding the workbook that arise over the course of the week.

10. WARM-UP/REVIEW Working with Conditional/Defeasible Present Estates

11. WARM-UP/REVIEW Working with Conditional/ Defeasible Present Estates Identifying Defeasible Fees

12. IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES

13. IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES

14. IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES • Remember, unlike the Workbook, I will give you ambiguous grants and you will need to be able to recognize arguments about whether the language should be interpreted to end the fee automatically when the condition is violated or instead to give the future interest-holder a choice.

15. IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES • Remember, unlike the Workbook, I will give you ambiguous grants. • More general point: Most of my questions are harder than the end-of-chapter problems in the workbook.

16. IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES

17. WARM-UP/REVIEW Working with Conditional/Defeasible Present Estates Identifying Defeasible Fees Distinguishing Defeasible Fees from Finite Estates + Contingent Remainders

18. DEFEASIBLE FEES v. CONTINGENT REMAINDERS

19. DEFEASIBLE FEES PRESENT INTEREST IS FEE CONTINGENT REMAINDERS PRESENT INTEREST IS FINITE

20. DEFEASIBLE FEES PRESENT ESTATE CUT OFF IF CONDITION MET CONTINGENT REMAINDERS PRESENT ESTATE TERMINATES NATURALLY

21. DEFEASIBLE FEES FUTURE INTEREST IN EITHER GRANTOR OR GRANTEE CONTINGENT REMAINDERS REMAINDER IN GRANTEE PLUSREVERSION IN GRANTOR

22. Pepe grants Tealacre to Rory and his heirs, but if Totie loses 100 pounds, she may enter and retake the land. (Fee Simple on Executory Limitation + Executory Interest) Pepe grants Tealacre to Rory for life, then to Totie if she loses 100 pounds. (Life Estate + Contingent Remainder)

23. WARM-UP/REVIEW Working with Conditional/Defeasible Present Estates Identifying Defeasible Fees Distinguishing Defeasible Fees from Finite Estates + Contingent Remainders Defeasible Finite Estates

24. DEFEASIBLE FINITE ESTATES Can create conditions cutting off finite estates, yielding, for example: Life EstateDeterminable Term of Yearson Condition Subsequent Life Estateon Executory Limitation

25. Defeasible Finite Estates: Example (7H): Thelma "to Louise for 99 years if Louise so long live." Louise: Term of years determinable. Thelma:Possibility of Reverter + Reversion = Reversion (Merger)

26. WARM-UP/REVIEW Working with Conditional/Defeasible Present Estates Identifying Defeasible Fees Distinguishing Defeasible Fees from Finite Estates + Contingent Remainders Defeasible Finite Estates Timing Ambiguity

27. TIMING AMBIGUITY To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. If Cheryl graduates from law school during Andrew’s life estate, does she divest Andrew’s interest or just Brian’s?

28. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. Common law presumption: If ambiguous, interest won’t divest life estate

29. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. Now generally treated as a question of grantor’s intent.

30. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl graduates from law school, to Cheryl. To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl has graduated from law school, then to Cheryl.

31. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl graduates from law school, to Cheryl. To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl has graduated from law school, then to Cheryl. Verb Tenses suggest immediate for first; at end of life estate for second.

32. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. Andrew is 16; Cheryl is 46.

33. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Cheryl graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. Andrew is 16; Cheryl is 46. Seems unlikely Cheryl will survive Andrew, so this suggests immediate divestment (or no point to grant).

34. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Andrew graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Brian graduates from law school, then to Cheryl.

35. TIMING AMBIGUITY: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Andrew graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Brian graduates from law school, then to Cheryl. Seems odd to punish Andrew for Brian’s life choices, so absent clear reason, likely treat as just cutting off B’s remainder

36. In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life,then to Jessica so long as she never tries to sell Mason-acre,otherwise to Mike and Mili.” At the time of the grant, Jessica has a (a) Vested remainder in fee simple determinable. (b) Vested remainder in fee simple absolute. (c) Vested remainder in fee simple on executory limitation. (d) Vested remainder subject to divestment.

37. In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life,then to Jessica so long as she never tries to sell Mason-acre,otherwise to Mike and Mili.” At the time of the grant, Jessica has a (a) Vested remainder in fee simple determinable. (b) Vested remainder in fee simple absolute. (c) Vested remainder in fee simple on executory limitation. (d) Vested remainder subject to divestment.

38. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS Conditions So Abhorrent … You Can’t Even Impose Them on Your Own Children

39. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS Total Restraint on Alienation

40. In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life,then to Jessica so long as she never tries to sell Mason-acre,otherwise to Mike and Mili.” • Total Restraint on Alienation is Invalid

41. In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life,then to Jessica so long as she never tries to sell Mason-acre,otherwise to Mike and Mili.” • Total Restraint on Alienation is Invalid • Pencil Out Unlawful Condition (and executory interest that turns on it)

42. In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life,then to Jessica. • Total Restraint on Alienation is Invalid • Pencil Out Unlawful Condition (and executory interest that turns on it) • Result is a Vested Remainder in Fee Simple Absolute

43. In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life,then to Jessica. • Total Restraint on Alienation is Invalid • Pencil Out Unlawful Condition (and executory interest that turns on it) • Result is a Vested Remainder in Fee Simple Absolute • Nasty Exam Q from Fall 2007 (b/c at End of Test)

44. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS • Total Restraint on Alienation • Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable • Casebook says only if Promissory (P625) • Other sources say sometimes Forfeiture

45. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS • Total Restraint on Alienation • Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable • Most Restrictions Restrain Alienation to Some Extent • If too burdensome/weird could treat as too much restraint • See Casebook at P632-33

46. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS • Total Restraint on Alienation • Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable • Most Restrictions Restrain Alienation to Some Extent • Use Restrictions (Only by X?) • OK if Charitable • Some jurisd: Non-Charitable = Unreas. Restraint on Alienation

47. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS • Doing Criminal Acts

48. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS • Total Restraint on Marriage • Some Jurisd: Maybe OK if Life Estate • Some Jurisd allow partial restraints • Until turn 25 • Shapira

49. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS • Obtaining Divorce

50. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS • Race-Based Limitations (Unenforceable) • Sex-Based Upheld w/in Family • Religion: (Discuss w Shapira)