(O): 1st QUESTION: RECAP Edith’s Interest Majority: E has F.S. Determinable Some: E has Life Estate Determinable Gloria holds future interest through residuary clause

(O): 2d QUESTION: Recap Is condition restraining 2d marriage void as against public policy? Policy Discussion: A’s right to control property v. E’s right to control her life Maybe more likely OK if just life estate for support

(O): 2d QUESTION Is condition restraining 2d marriage void as against public policy? Result: If not void, nothing changes If void, pencil out condition

(O): 2d QUESTION If condition void, pencil out condition “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

If condition void, pencil out condition (O): 2d QUESTION If condition void, pencil out condition “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit.” Majority: E = Fee Simple Absolute Some: E = Life Estate + G = Reversion

(O): 2d QUESTION If condition void, pencil out condition: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit.” Edith Dies? Majority: E = Fee Simple Absolute  S= Fee Simple Absolute

(O): 2d QUESTION If condition void, pencil out condition: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit.” Edith Dies? Some: E = Life Estate + G = Reversion  G = Fee Simple Absolute

(O): 3d QUESTION: ARGUMENTS? Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage?

(O): 3d QUESTION Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage? If yes, Gloria gets fee simple absolute. If no (Restatement position) nothing changes

(O): E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Some: E = Life Estate Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter +Reversion = Reversion (Merger) Who Gets?

(O): E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Some: E = Life Estate Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter +Reversion = Reversion (Merger) G = Fee Simple Absolute

(O): E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter Who Gets?

(O): E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter S = Fee Simple Absolute (Condition Can Never Occur)

Shapira v. Union National Bank POINCIANAS: DQS105-107

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith Belief v. Conduct (Marriage in 1974) Administrability

ADMINISTRABILITY To Pigpen, so long as the kitchens and bathrooms are always kept very clean. To Schroeder, so long as he never plays any work by Beethoven on the piano.

ADMINISTRABILITY To Lucy so long as she remains a member of the Society of Friends To Linus, so long as he remains a good Catholic

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Gift conditioned upon divorce v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Gift conditioned upon divorce v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith Ct: Latter not sufficient to encourage fake M & divorce Grantee can’t avoid condition by saying “I will act in bad faith”

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party v. Conditional gift without “gift over”

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party v. Conditional gift without “gift over” Comprehensive plan v. “In Terrorem” condition

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Forcing a marriage as condition of completed gift v. Withholding gift until marriage made

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS 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

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Quaker men (Maddox) v. Jewish women (Shapira)

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS Quaker men (Maddox) v. Jewish women (Shapira) Too Few Available Partners E.g., you must marry one of the Bronte Sisters

DQ106. Maddox rules that these kinds of conditions are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners. How few partners must there be to meet the test?

DQ106. Maddox: unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners. If you were living in a state with that test, how would you prove it was met?

DQ106. Was the Maddox opinion cited in Shapira correct to rule that these kinds of conditions are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners?

DQ106. Was Maddox correct to rule that these kinds of conditions are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners? Too much restriction on grantee v. Grantor’s rights

DQ107: Should a court enforce conditions that limit or mandate religious behavior for the grantee?

DQ104. Why should we allow grantors to have any control at all of what happens to land after they have died? Maybe allow life estates & vested remainders but no conditions on use?

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?

TIMING AMBIGUITY 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

TIMING AMBIGUITY 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.

TIMING AMBIGUITY 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.

TIMING AMBIGUITY 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.

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

TIMING AMBIGUITY 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).

TIMING AMBIGUITY 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.

TIMING AMBIGUITY 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. No clear reason to punish Andrew for Brian’s life choices.

FINAL TEST NOTES: SUBSTANCE Lot of Repetition or Alteration of Old Qs Read Carefully Positives & Negatives Changes from Old Qs Arguments Supporting Must be correct Must logically support position

FINAL TEST NOTES: LOGISTICS Office Hours on Course Page All Contact Stops 6 p.m. Sunday Room Assignments on Course Page Reuse Midterm Blind Grading Number Test Starts at 8:00; Arrive 15+ Minutes Early Bring Number 2 Pencils

FINAL TEST NOTES: EMERGENCIES If something occurs that prevents you from taking test on time: Talk to Deans of Students, NOT ME If a problem arises in exam room: Talk to Registrar or Deans of Students, NOT ME