1 / 81

PROPERTY D SLIDES

PROPERTY D SLIDES. 3-18-14. Tuesday March 18 Music : Mozart, Horn Concertos Dennis Brain, Trumpet Philharmonia Orchestra (Recorded 2005).

margie
Download Presentation

PROPERTY D SLIDES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROPERTY D SLIDES 3-18-14

  2. Tuesday March 18 Music: Mozart, Horn ConcertosDennis Brain, TrumpetPhilharmonia Orchestra (Recorded 2005)

  3. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter).E shacks up with Sherman.E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities  Decision Tree (Scrap Paper) • Life Estate Determinable v. Fee Simple Determinable? • Is condition restraining second marriage void? • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage?

  4. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • Life Estate Determinable (LED) v. Fee Simple Determ. (FSD)? • Serious Arguments Both Ways; States Split • Majority: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Minority: LED + (Possibility of Reverter + Reversion)  Reversion • Is condition restraining second marriage void? • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage?

  5. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • Life Estate Determinable (LED) v. Fee Simple Determ. (FSD)? • Majority: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Minority: LED + (Possibility of Reverter + Reversion)  Reversion • Is condition restraining second marriage void? • Arguments Both Ways; More Likely Valid if Life Estate • If Valid, No Change in Interests • If Void, Pencil Out Condition + Future Interest that Depends on Condition • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage?

  6. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • Life Estate Determinable (LED) v. Fee Simple Determ. (FSD)? • Is condition restraining second marriage void? • Arguments Both Ways; More Likely Valid if Life Estate • Majority: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Condition Valid: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Condition Void: Pencil Out Condition  Edith has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: LED + (Possibility of Reverter + Reversion)  Reversion • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage?

  7. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • Life Estate Determinable (LED) v. Fee Simple Determ. (FSD)? • Is condition restraining second marriage void? • Majority: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Condition Valid: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Condition Void: Edith has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: LED + (Possibility of Reverter + Reversion)  Reversion • Condition Valid: LED + Reversion • Condition Void: Life Estate (Unconditional) + Reversion • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage?

  8. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • Life Estate Determinable (LED) v. Fee Simple Determ. (FSD)? • Is condition restraining second marriage void? • Majority: Condition Valid: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Majority: Condition Void: Edith has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: Condition Valid: LED + Reversion • Minority: Condition Void: Life Estate (Unconditional) + Reversion • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? • Only need to resolve if condition is valid.

  9. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? • Only need to resolve if condition is valid. • Discussion: Literal Argument v. Inconsistency w Grantor’s Purpose (cf. Mahrenholz) • Restatement Position: • Not a Violation • For Restatement to Address, Must Have Come Up Pretty Often

  10. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • Life Estate Determinable (LED) v. Fee Simple Determ. (FSD)? • Is condition restraining second marriage void? • Majority: Condition Valid: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Majority: Condition Void: Edith has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: Condition Valid: LED + Reversion • Minority: Condition Void: Life Estate (Unconditional) + Reversion • Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? • Arguments Both Ways • If Condition Valid & Violation, Gloria Takes Immediately • If Condition Invalid or Void, No Change

  11. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • If Condition Valid & Violation, Gloria Takes Immediately • If Condition Invalid or Void, No Change • Majority: Condition Valid: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Violation: Gloria has Fee Simple Absolute • No Violation: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Majority: Condition Void: Edith has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: Condition Valid: LED + Reversion • Minority: Condition Void: Life Estate (Unconditional) + Reversion

  12. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Three Qs/Ambiguities & Decision Tree • If Condition Valid & Violation, Gloria Takes Immediately • If Condition Invalid or Void, No Change • Majority: Condition Valid: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Violation: Gloria has Fee Simple Absolute • No Violation: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Majority: Condition Void: Edith has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: Condition Valid: LED + Reversion • Violation: Gloria has Fee Simple Absolute • No Violation: LED + Reversion • Minority: Condition Void: Life Estate (Unconditional) + Reversion

  13. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Final Decision Tree: Edith Dies • Majority: Condition Valid +Violation: Gloria has Fee Simple Absolute • Majority: Condition Valid + No Violation: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Majority: Condition Void: Edith has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: Condition Valid + Violation: Gloria has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: Condition Valid + No Violation: LED + Reversion • Minority: Condition Void: Life Estate (Unconditional) + Reversion

  14. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Final Decision Tree: Edith Dies • Majority: Condition Valid +Violation: Gloria has Fee Simple Absolute • Majority: Condition Valid + No Violation: FSD + Possibility of Reverter • Majority: Condition Void: Edith has Fee Simple Absolute  Sherman • Minority: Condition Valid + Violation: Gloria has Fee Simple Absolute • Minority: Condition Valid + No Violation: LED + Reversion • Minority: Condition Void: Life Estate (Unconditional) + Reversion 

  15. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Final Decision Tree: Edith Dies Majority: Condition Valid + No Violation Edith has FSD; Gloria has Possibility of Reverter What happens to Condition When Edith Dies?

  16. (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter Gloria (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Final Decision Tree: Edith Dies Majority: Condition Valid + No Violation Edith has FSD; Gloria has Possibility of Reverter • What happens to Condition When Edith Dies? • Edith Can’t Remarry After Death (As Far as We Know ) • Thus Condition Can Never Occur • So Condition Effectively Disappears • Sherman has Fee Simple Absolute; Gloria’s Interest Fails

  17. COMPARE “To E & her heirs so long as she remains unmarried.” Condition limited to E, so ends at E’s death. Successors after that take Fee Simple Absolute “To E & her heirs so long as alcohol is never sold on the premises.” Condition not limited to E, so it survives her. Successors take Fee Simple Determinable.

  18. Qs on Problem 4O?

  19. Conditions: Additional Information • UnacceptableConditions • Problem 4O • Shapira • Timing Issues

  20. YELLOWSTONE: (DQs 4.13-4.15) GIANT GEYSER

  21. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS  We’ll Explore Shapira Reasoning by Looking at Five Key Distinctions Drawn by the Opinion

  22. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1  Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith  Why Relevant?

  23. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1  Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith  • Coercing Belief  v. Conduct  • Administrability

  24. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1  Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith  • Coercing Belief  v. Conduct  • Note View of Marriage in 1974 • Can Use Case to Support Conditions Requiring Conduct Affecting Religious Concerns but not Coercing Belief • Administrability

  25. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1  Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith  Administrability: Compare: • To Pigpen, so long as the kitchens and bathrooms are always kept very clean. • To Schroeder, so long as he never plays any workby Beethoven on the piano.

  26. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1  Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith  Administrability: Compare: • To Lucy so long as she remains a member of the Society of Friends. •  To Linus, so long as he remains a good Catholic. QUESTIONS?

  27. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #2  Gift conditioned upon divorce  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith (maybe ) Why Relevant?

  28. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #2  Gift conditioned upon divorce  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith (maybe ) • Court: Latter not sufficient to encourage fake marriage & divorce • Grantee can’t avoid condition by saying “I will act in bad faith” (this concern arises regarding many legal issues)

  29. Yellowstone: DQ4.13 SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #3  Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party v. Conditional gift without “gift over” Comprehensive Estate Plan (likely) v. “In Terrorem” Condition (maybe)

  30. Yellowstone: DQ4.13 SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #4  Forcing a marriage as a condition of a completed gift  v. Withholding gift until marriage made  Why Relevant?

  31. Yellowstone: DQ4.13 SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #4   Forcing a marriage as condition of completed gift v. Withholding gift until marriage made  • Remedy: Injunction v. Forfeiting Gift • Like case involving divorce settlement requirement that child be raised in partic. faith: Won’t impose contempt/crim sanctions for not following religion

  32. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #5  Quaker Men (Maddox)  v.  Jewish Women (Shapira) Why Relevant?

  33. Yellowstone: DQ4.13SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #5  Quaker Men (Maddox)  v. Jewish Women (Shapira) • Quakers = Too Few Available Partners  • E.g., you must marry one of the Bronte Sisters 

  34. Shapira v. Union National Bank Yellowstone: DQ4.14 • Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners. • How few partners must there be to meet the test?

  35. Shapira v. Union National Bank Yellowstone: DQ4.14 • Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners. • If you were living in a state with that test, how could you prove whether it was met? (Cf. Lawyering Q on Final Exam)

  36. Shapira v. Union National Bank Yellowstone: DQ4.14 • Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners. • Assuming that some partial restraints on marriage are allowed, is the Maddox rule a good result?

  37. Shapira v. Union National Bank Yellowstone: DQ4.14 Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners. Good result? • Too much restriction on grantee v. • Grantor’s Rights (can always argue that grantors should be able to dispose of their own property as they wish).

  38. Shapira v. Union National Bank Yellowstone: DQ4.15 Should a court enforce conditions that limit or mandate religious behavior for the grantee?

  39. Questions on Shapira?

  40. ALL: DQ4.12 = Big Underlying Q Why should we allow grantors to have any control at all of what happens to land after they have died? • Might say can choose who gets, but only can give fee simple absolute • Maybe allow life estates & vested remainders but no conditions on use

  41. Conditions: Additional Information • UnacceptableConditions • Problem 4O • Shapira • Timing Issues

  42. Conditions & theStatute of Limitations • If Condition is Self-Executing: Statute Runs from First Moment Condition is Violated, Which Creates Trespass Claim • If Future Interest Holder Must Act to Take: • If claiming condition was violated only by a single discrete act, presumably statute runs from the time of that act. • If claiming condition was violated by a continuing series of acts (as in 4I), presumably statute continually restarts as long as acts go on (but risk of waiver if aware of)

  43. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. If Caitlin graduates from law school during Andrew’s life estate, does she divest Andrew’s interest or just Brian’s?

  44. Conditions: Timing AmbiguityPossible Arguments To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. Common Law Presumption: If ambiguous, interest won’t divest life estate. Today: Generally treated as question of Grantor’s intent, so look at context. I won’t test this as a difference between Common Law & Today

  45. Conditions: Timing AmbiguityPossible Arguments To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, to Caitlin. To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin has graduatedfrom law school, then to Caitlin. Differences in wording, especially verb tenses, suggest C takes immediately for (1); at end of Life Estate for (2).

  46. Conditions: Timing AmbiguityPossible Arguments To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. Andrew is 16; Caitlin is 46. Seems unlikely Caitlin will survive Andrew Suggests grantor intended Caitlin’s interest to cut off Andrew’s (or little point to the grant).

  47. Conditions: Timing AmbiguityChange Grant: Possible Arguments To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin Andrew graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. Seems purpose of grant is either: To discourage A from going to law school To provide support for A unless he becomes a lawyer and can support himself Either way, suggests C’s interest should cut off A’s Life Estate, because it’s not aimed at either B or C.

  48. Conditions: Timing AmbiguityChange Grant: Possible Arguments To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Andrew graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Brian graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. In (2), seems odd to punish Andrew for Brian’s life choices, so absent clear reason, likely treat C’s interest as just cutting off B’s remainder

  49. Conditions: Timing AmbiguityChange Grant: Possible Arguments To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Andrew graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Brian graduates from law school, then to Caitlin. In (2), seems odd to punish Andrew for Brian’s life choices, so absent clear reason, likely treat C’s interest as just cutting off B’s remainder Questions on Timing Ambiguities?

  50. Rules Furthering Alienability

More Related