3-20-17 National Ravioli Day PROPERTY A SLIDES 3-20-17 National Ravioli Day

Next Few DF Sessions: Today @ 9:40 Here = 2016 Chapter 3 Test (Lauren) Tuesday March 21 Music to Accompany Shapira Barbra Streisand, The Way We Were (1974) On Course Page Now: Chapter 3 Question Bank Eight Old Chapter 3 Tests I’ll Post by 5:00 Today: Answers/Explanations for All Except 2017 (FRI DF) 2019 Instructions & Syllabus Adverse Possession Reading for Friday Next Few DF Sessions: Today @ 9:40 Here = 2016 Chapter 3 Test (Lauren) Fri 3/22 @ 12:30 F309 = 2017 Chapter 3 Test (Brendan) Mon 3/25: No DF (Test Day

SEQUOIA: Problem 3I cont’d SEQUOIAS

Sequoia: (3I): O conveys "to J and her heirs so long as the premises are not used for sale of beer, wine, or liquor, and if beer, wine, or liquor is sold on the premises, O retains a right to re-enter the premises." J’s restaurant serves several dishes cooked with wine or flamed with brandy and at Sunday brunch offers a free glass of champagne. Restaurant is successful; 11 years later, D wants to buy it and add a bar. ASSUME Unclear under relevant state law: FSD or FSCS Whether J has violated condition. Possible Advice to D? MONDAY: Volosin Approached as a Lawyering Q. Might be Part of Task Here, But Asked to Give Advice in Face of Uncertainty

(3I) Plausible Advice to Donald Includes: Buy both present estate and future interest (or “all rights” of both J and O) to merge into fee simple absolute. Serve free liquor & raise prices (and argue waiver if O questions) Make purchase contingent on J insuring right to use alcohol (winning suit re adverse possession/waiver/etc.; buying future interest/waiver from O) Find out if D is willing and able to sell beer/wine on nearby site for people to take into restaurant (if local law allows). QUESTIONS ON 3I?

(3I) Plausible Advice to Donald Test Note #5: Test Will Include At Least One Question Focused on Giving A Client This Type of Advice. See, e.g., 2015-Q12 2016-Q10 2017-Q7 Advice Q Based on 3I Might Look Like: Assume that J’s restaurant is successful. 11 years after its opening, your client D wants to buy it and add a bar. Which of the following suggestions would it be helpful for you to make to D?: (3I) Plausible Advice to Donald

EXAM TIP: “Which of the Following Arguments Does [Not] Support …?” Can Arise in Context of: Fee Simple v. Life Estate (White, Prob. 3O) FSD v. FSCS (Mahrenholz, Prob. 3I) Whether a Condition is Valid (Prob. 3O, Shapira) Advice Question (just described) Timing Ambiguities (after Shapira)

EXAM TIP: “Which of the Following Arguments Does [Not] Support …?” For an Argument to “Support” a Particular Legal Result (or for Advice to be “Helpful”): It Must Be Legally and Factually Correct AND It Must Logically Suggest that the Result is More Likely or More Desirable Than the Alternative

Set-Up for Friday First Half Hour: Intro to Chapter 4 (Adverse Possession) Organization of Assignments Unique to Address Two Concermns Cause of Action Made Up of (Usually) Five Distinct Elements Next Two Weeks are Very Heavy for You Thus after intro session on Friday: We will work one Element at time looking at all major cases for each Each panel except Sequoia will be responsible for one key element (Both Intro DQs and Subsequent Review Problem) [BE RESPONSIBLE] Everyone by next Wednesday needs to read primary cases for plot.

Set-Up for Friday First Half Hour: Intro to Chapter 4 Rest of Class: Complete Chapter 3 Finish Shapira & Timing Issues (as needed) Review Problems: Everglades (3P/3R) & Olympic (3Q/3S) Be Prepared to: Identify List of Contestable Issues (as I did for you on 3I & 3O) Go Thru Flow Chart of Possible Iterations for 3P & 3Q (as we did for Mahrenholz & 3O) I’ll Post Slides/Write-Ups for All

Questions & Concerns: Recap & Warm-Up Fee Simple Determinable v. Fee Simple on Executory Limitation Placement of Condition in Grant (Contingent Remainder v. Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment) Timing of Condition (Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment v. Vested Remainder in Fee Simple on Executory Limitation) An Old Multiple Choice Q

RECAP #1: Defeasible Fees: Terminology: Workbook v RECAP #1: Defeasible Fees: Terminology: Workbook v. Restatement (Me & You)

RECAP #1: Defeasible Fees: Terminology: Workbook v RECAP #1: Defeasible Fees: Terminology: Workbook v. Restatement (Me & You)

RECAP #2: Placement of Condition [Alternate] Contingent Remainders (1) v. Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment (2) To A for life, [then to B & her heirs if she turns 21, ] [but if B dies before 21, then to C and his heirs]. (2) To A for life, [then to B & her heirs, ] [but if B dies before 21, then to C & his heirs].

RECAP #2: Placement of Condition CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (Problem 5-28) O to A for life, then to B, on condition that B has passed the bar.

CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (Problem 5-28) O to A for life, then to B,  on condition that B has passed the bar. A has Life Estate B has a Remainder (follows life estate) At First Looks Vested Living Ascertainable Person No Condition in Clause Creating the Interest (Walk to the Punctuation & Turn Around …) BUT …

CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (Problem 5-28) O to A for life, then to B,  on condition that B has passed the bar.  A has Life Estate B has a Remainder (follows life estate) At First Looks Vested BUT Condition that follows it does not create an interest in anybody else, so must attach to B’s remainder Comma after B unneeded & confusing. 

CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (Problem 5-28) O to A for life, then to B, on condition that B has passed the bar. A has Life Estate B has a Contingent Remainder Condition must be a “Condition Precedent” See 5-29, which strongly suggests that interest in 5-28 is a contingent remainder. QUESTIONS?

COMPARE O to A for life, then to B[,] on condition that B has passed the bar. A has Life Estate B has a Contingent Remainder O retains a Reversion O to A for life, then to B, on condition that if B ever fails the bar, then to C. B has a Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment C has a Shifting Executory Interest

RECAP #3: Timing of Condition Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment (1) v. Vested Remainder in F.S. subj. to Exec. Lim. (2) (1) To A for life, then to B & her heirs, but if B dies before turning 21, then to C & his heirs. Condition might occur before B takes possession. (2) To A for life, then to B & her heirs, but if B ever uses the land for commercial purposes, to C & his heirs. Condition is a limit on B’s use of the land and cannot occur before B takes possession.

RECAP #3: Timing of Condition CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (Problem 9-11) O to A for life, then to B, but if B ever allows A to be moved into a nursing home, then to C Condition must occur, if at all, while A is alive, thus before B gets possession. Presumably (considering grantor’s likely intent), it would not violate the condition for B to allow someone to carry A’s corpse into a nursing home. (!)

CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (Problem 9-11) O to A for life, then to B, but if B ever allows A to be moved into a nursing home, then to C Condition must occur, if at all, while A is alive, thus before B gets possession. B will eventually get either nothing or a fee simple absolute (assuming “today”) B has a vested remainder subject to divestment (in Fee Simple Absolute) NOT in Fee Simple on Executory Limitation

CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (Problem 9-11) O to A for life, then to B, but if B ever allows A to be moved into a nursing home, then to C Condition must occur, if at all, while A is alive, thus before B gets possession. B will eventually get either nothing or a fee simple absolute (assuming “today”) B has a vested remainder subject to divestment [in FS Absolute] QUESTIONS?

Take a moment and try this. RECAP #4: Old Multiple Choice Q 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. Take a moment and try this.

Why is (b) the correct answer? 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. Why is (b) the correct answer?

Unacceptable Conditions Conditions So Abhorrent …

Unacceptable Conditions Conditions So Abhorrent … You Can’t Even Impose Them on Your Own Children

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation

Unacceptable Conditions 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

Unacceptable Conditions 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)

Unacceptable Conditions 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) Result is Vested Remainder in Fee Simple Absolute (2006 = “Today”)

Unacceptable Conditions 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.” Exam Question Fall 2007 & Spring 2010 1st Time Nasty b/c New & at End of Test: (1/63 students got it) 2d Time (with warning) about 45% got it. READ CAREFULLY!!

Conditions: Additional Information Unacceptable Conditions Problem 3O Shapira Timing Issues

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable

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 (b/c nobody will purchase) See Casebook at P565-66 Maybe: “so long as the owner sleeps on the parcel every night.”

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable Most Restrictions Restrain Alienation to Some Extent Use Restrictions (Use Only by X?) OK if Charitable Some jurisd: Non-Charitable = Unreasonable Restraint on Alienation

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Doing Criminal Acts “To Kenya if she murders Jorge”

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Doing Criminal Acts Total Restraint on Marriage: Generally Barred Some Jurisd: Maybe OK if Life Estate Some Jurisd allow reasonable partial restraints E.g., “So long as she doesn’t marry until she turns 25” We’ll explore with Problem 3O & Shapira

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Doing Criminal Acts Total Restraint on Marriage: Generally Barred Encouraging Divorce (Evil In-Laws Grant): “To Sansa so long as she divorces Tyrion”

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Doing Criminal Acts Total Restraint on Marriage: Generally Barred Encouraging Divorce (Evil In-Laws Grant): Grant Penalizing Divorce Seems to be OK “To Sansa for Life, but if she divorces Tyrion, to Jon”

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Doing Criminal Acts Total Restraint on Marriage: Generally Barred Encouraging Divorce Commonly Protected Characteristics Race-Based Limitations (Clearly Unenforceable) Sex-Based Upheld (At Least w/in Family) Religion: (We’ll Discuss w Shapira)

Unacceptable Conditions Total Restraint on Alienation Doing Criminal Acts Total Restraint on Marriage: Generally Barred Encouraging Divorce Commonly Protected Characteristics Questions?

Conditions: Additional Information Unacceptable Conditions Problem 3O Shapira Timing Issues

BADLANDS: Problem 3O NORBECK PASS

Gloria is not Edith’s child. Edith moves in with male friend, Sherman. BADLANDS (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Gloria is not Edith’s child. Edith moves in with male friend, Sherman. Edith then dies, devising all her property to Sherman. “devising” means?

Note on Future Interests Created in Wills Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Note on Future Interests Created in Wills The future interest that is retained by Archie (when he grants present interest to Edith) then passes to Gloria through the residuary clause. For purposes of naming the property rights involved, we treat this future interest as being held initially by Archie (the grantor), because it is not explicitly described as being granted to a third party.

Three Qs/Ambiguities I Said We’d Discuss: Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Three Qs/Ambiguities I Said We’d Discuss: Life Estate Determinable v. Fee Simple Determinable? Is condition restraining second marriage void? Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? Then We’ll Work Through Decision Tree

(Q1) Arguments Supporting Fee Simple Determinable Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. (Q1) Arguments Supporting Fee Simple Determinable (as opposed to Life Estate Determinable?)

Arguments Supporting FSD Include: Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Arguments Supporting FSD Include: Presumption of Fee Simple if Today No Explicit Reference to “Life” No Explicit Gift Over Listed (See White v. Brown) Arguments Supporting Life Estate Determinable?

(Q1) Arguments Supporting Life Estate Determinable Include: Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. (Q1) Arguments Supporting Life Estate Determinable Include: Presumption of Life Estate if at Common Law “Use and Benefit” Sounds Like Life Estate (Hard to “Use” Land After Death) Condition/Language is Consistent with Intent to Provide Shelter/Support for Edith During Her Lifetime Reasonable to Think Archie would try to Protect Gloria (not Edith’s daughter)

Caselaw in many states today interpreting “for use and benefit:” Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Caselaw in many states today interpreting “for use and benefit:” Majority View: creates Fee Simple Minority View: creates Life Estate

Majority View: E has Fee Simple Determinable Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Majority View: E has Fee Simple Determinable What is Remaining Future Interest in Archie (passed to Gloria through residuary clause)?

Majority View: E has Fee Simple Determinable Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Majority View: E has Fee Simple Determinable A  G: Possibility of Reverter

Minority View: E has Life Estate Determinable Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Minority View: E has Life Estate Determinable What is Remaining Future Interest in Archie (passed to Gloria through residuary clause)?

Minority View: E has Life Estate Determinable Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. Minority View: E has Life Estate Determinable A G: Possibility of Reverter + Reversion Merges into Reversion

(Allowed for life estates in a few states.) Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. (Q2) If Edith had never married, condition probably would be void as against public policy. (Allowed for life estates in a few states.) Should we treat condition restraining second marriage differently from one restraining first marriage?

Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. (Q2) Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy? Policy Concerns: A’s right to control his property (and nice 2017 point re protecting Gloria) v. E’s right to control her own life Stereotypes about love and sexuality in older persons, Court probably more likely to allow condition if it views E’s interest as just a life estate for support.

If not void, nothing changes If void, pencil out condition Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. (Q2) Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy? Result: If not void, nothing changes If void, pencil out condition

If condition void, pencil out condition: Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. If condition void, pencil out condition: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

If Void, What Happens when E dies? Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria. If condition void, pencil out condition: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Resulting Interests: Majority: E = Fee Simple Absolute Some: E = Life Estate + G = Reversion If Void, What Happens when E dies?

If condition void, resulting interests: Badlands (3O): Archie in will: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to G. E then dies leaving all property to S. If condition void, resulting interests: Majority: E = Fee Simple Absolute When E Dies, S gets FSA through E’s will. Some: E = Life Estate + G = Reversion When E dies, Life Estate ends, and G has FSA.

(Q3) Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? (4O): Acadia: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to Gloria. E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S (Q3) Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? Only need to resolve if condition is valid. ARGUMENTS?

Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? (4O): Acadia: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to Gloria. 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 (both re Edith & re Gloria) (cf. Mahrenholz) Restatement Position: Not a Violation For Restatement to Address, Must Have Come Up Pretty Often Other Reasons Not to Marry from Pensions & Social Security

(Q3) Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? (4O): Acadia: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to Gloria. E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S (Q3) Does cohabitation violate a restraint on marriage? Only need to resolve if condition is valid. Since arguments both ways, need to follow through for both possibilities for both possible readings of grant

If Condition is Violated? If Condition is Not Violated? (4O): Acadia: A in Will: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to G. E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Minority: E = LED G = Reversion (incl. Poss. of Reverter). If Condition is Violated? If Condition is Not Violated?

If Condition is Violated? If Condition is Not Violated? (4O): Acadia: A in Will: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to G. E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Minority: E = LED G = Reversion (incl. Poss. of Reverter). If Condition is Violated? E immediately loses title G’s Poss of Reverter  FSA E Dies? If Condition is Not Violated? Parties’ Interests Don’t Change E Dies?

If Condition is Violated? If Condition is Not Violated? (4O): Acadia: A in Will: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to G. E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Minority: E = LED G = Reversion (incl. Poss. of Reverter). If Condition is Violated? E immediately loses title G’s Poss of Reverter  FSA E Dies? E has no interest to pass on G = FSA If Condition is Not Violated? Parties’ Interests Don’t Change E Dies? E’s Life Estate ends G’s Reversion  FSA G = FSA

If Condition is Violated? If Condition is Not Violated? (4O): Acadia: A in Will: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to G. E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Majority: E = FSD G = Poss. of Reverter If Condition is Violated? E immediately loses title G’s Poss of Reverter  FSA If Condition is Not Violated? Parties’ Interests Don’t Change

If Condition is Violated? If Condition is Not Violated? (4O): Acadia: A in Will: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to Gloria. E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Majority: E = FSD G = Poss. of Reverter If Condition is Violated? E immediately loses title G’s Poss of Reverter  FSA E Dies? E has no interest to pass on G = FSA If Condition is Not Violated? Parties’ Interests Don’t Change E Dies: What Happens?

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

Final Branch of Decision Tree: Edith Dies (4O): Archie in will: “To my wife E, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to A’s daughter G (not E’s daughter). E shacks up with Sherman. E dies; devises everything to S Final Branch of 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

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.

Conditions: Additional Information Unacceptable Conditions Problem 3O Shapira Timing Issues

ACADIA: DQ3.13-3.15 Acadia Sunrise

Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS  We’ll Explore Shapira Reasoning by Looking at Five Key Distinctions Drawn by the Opinion (Listed on Course Page)

Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1  Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith  Why Relevant?

Acadia: DQ3.13  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

Acadia: DQ3.13  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

Acadia: DQ3.13  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 work by Beethoven on the piano.

Acadia: DQ3.13  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?

Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #2  Gift conditioned upon divorce  v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith (maybe ) Why Relevant?

Acadia: DQ3.13  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).