PROPERTY D SLIDES : MAKE-UP CLASS

Wednesday March 19 (Last Day of Classical Music) Mozart, Piano Concertos #21, 23, 24 ( ) Orchestra: Academy of St. Martin in the Fields Piano: Alfred Brendel (Recorded 1995) #8 on list of “The Latest” Stories on CNN.com yesterday afternoon: “Downtown Disney fish tank bursts” My Reaction: “OMG! Where’s Nemo???”

Rules Furthering Alienability Doctrine of Destructability of Contingent Remainders Doctrine of Worthier Title Rule in Shelley’s CaseRule in Shelley’s Case Rule Against Perpetuities (NOTIO)

RULE IN SHELLEY’S CASE IF-- One Instrument – Creates Life Estate in A – Plus Remainder in A’s Heirs – Both Equitable or Both Legal Remainder in A’s heirs  Remainder in A

RULE IN SHELLEY’S CASE ALWAYS RULE OF LAW, NOT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

RULE IN SHELLEY’S CASE RULE OF LAW, NOT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION COMMON LAW: RULE APPLIES TODAY: ELIMINATED BY STATUTE IN MOST STATES

BISCAYNE: Problem(s) 4Q SUNRISE AT ADAMS KEY

(4Qi): Will "to Grace for life, then to Grace's children and their heirs." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?

(4Qi): Will "to Grace for life, then to Grace's children and their heirs." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case? None. Remainder to “children” not “heirs”

(4Qii): Johnny “ to Jay for life, then to Jay's heirs if Jay survives David." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?

(4Qii): Johnny “ to Jay for life, then to Jay's heirs if Jay survives David." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case? To Jay for life, then to Jay, if Jay survives David. Note: No Merger b/c Remainder is Contingent

(4Qiii): Cher "to Chas[tity] for 100 years if she so long live, then to Chas[tity]'s heirs." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?

(4Qiii) : Cher "to Chas[tity] for 100 years if she so long live, then to Chas[tity]'s heirs." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case? None. Chas[tity] has term of years determinable, not life estate.

(4Qiv): Bill "to Chelsea for life." Bill subsequently devises the reversion to Chelsea's heirs. Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?

(4Qiv): Bill "to Chelsea for life." Bill subsequently devises the reversion to Chelsea's heirs. Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case? N one. Not done in one instrument.

(4Qv): Al "to Tipper for life, then to Tipper's heirs. I intend that the rule in Shelley's Case shall not apply." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?

(4Qv): Al "to Tipper for life, then to Tipper's heirs. I intend that the rule in Shelley's Case shall not apply." Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case? Rule applies. Rule of Law, not construction.

(4Qv): Al "to T for life, then to T's heirs. I intend that the rule … shall not apply." Rule applies. “To Tipper for life, then to Tipper”  into fee simple absolute.

“ At Common Law ” v. “ Today ”

Default Estate “At Common Law” v. “ Today ” Life Estate (Must use “and M’s Heirs” to create fee simple.) Fee Simple

“to X and the Heirs of his Body” “At Common Law” v. “ Today ” Created a Traditional Fee Tail Traditional Fee Tail eliminated; state statutes provide different results when this language used Not responsible for details of this

Doctrine of Destructability of Contingent Remainders “At Common Law” v. “ Today ” Applied everywhere Eliminated in all states except Florida

Doctrine of Worthier Title “At Common Law” v. “ Today ” Applied everywhere as Rule of Law Eliminated in some states; Rule of Construction in others

Rule in Shelley’s Case “At Common Law” v. “ Today ” Applied everywhere as Rule of Law Eliminated in most states

Rules Furthering Alienability Doctrine of Destructability of Contingent Remainders Doctrine of Worthier Title Rule in Shelley’s Case Rule Against Perpetuities (NOTIO)Rule Against Perpetuities (NOTIO)

Review Problems 4R-4U For Each Problem, We Will: – Identify Ambiguities & Questions – Work through Possible Resolutions for Some of These Qs – Work through one possible branch of the decision trees Final Slides & Write-Ups of Problems – Together will contain more complete coverage – Probably won’t be posted until late tomorrow

BISCAYNE: Review Problem 4R SUNRISE AT ADAMS KEY

4R: Biscayne Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS Today or “At Common Law”? R alive or dead? Operation of DWT Condition void? M’s interest intended to cut off life estate? Details in Review Problem Write-Up on Course Page

4R: Biscayne Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” ONE (EASY) BRANCH OF DECISION TREE Condition Void  Pencil out M’s interest R Alive  As written, contingent remainder in R’s heirs (unascertainable) “At Common Law”  DWT is Rule of Law, so remainder in grantor’s heirs becomes a reversion. RESULT: Stacy has Life Estate Renee has Reversion

4R: Biscayne Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” SECOND BRANCH OF DECISION TREE R Dead  Remainder is vested in R’s heirs as defined by intestacy statute; DWT doesn’t apply b/c grantor dead. Today  Interest in Marni is in fee simple. Condition valid; M’s interest intended to cut off life estate  Both of the other interests could be cut off by M. RESULT: Stacy has Life Estate Subject to Executory Limitation Renee’s [Ascertained] Heirs have Vested Remainder in FS Subj to Divestmt Marni has a Shifting Executory Interest in Fee Simple

ARCHES: Problem 4S DELICATE ARCHES

4S: ARCHES 1.Xaviera grants Brothelacre “to Betsy if it continues to be used as a house of prostitution, but if not, my heirs can take it.” 2.Xaviera died survived by no issue or spouse, but by her mother, Yvonne. She left a will giving all her property to her friend Phil. 3.Betsy replaced the existing brothel with an ad agency. NOT AMBIGUITIES Common Law v. Today (Ad Agency) Who is X’s “heir”? Y not P

(4S) (Arches): X grants lot “to B if it continues to be used as a house of prostitution, but if not, my heirs can take it.” AMBIGUITIES IN GRANT Condition Valid? Heirs take automatically v. must act? Operation of DWT

(4S) (Arches): X grants lot “to B if it continues to be used as a house of prostitution, but if not, my heirs can take it.” X later died, survived by mother Y, but no issue or spouse. X in will gave all her property to friend P. B later closed the brothel and replaced it with an ad agency. AMBIGUITIES ARISING AFTER GRANT Possibilities or Reverter/Rights of Entry Alienable? Ad agency violate grant?

(4S) (Arches): X grants lot “to B if it continues to be used as a house of prostitution, but if not, my heirs can take it.” X later died, survived by mother Y, but no issue or spouse. X in will gave all her property to friend P. ANALYSIS & BRANCHES OF DECISION TREE IN WRITE-UP OF REVIEW PROBLEMS

REDWOOD: Review Problem 4T REDWOODS & FERNS

Redwood(4T): A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. I leave rest of my property to B.” B dies when D is 18. B’s will gives all to IRC. B’s heirs are D + G + H. Let’s assume not “at common law” b/c of IRC (though close Q)

Redwood(4T): A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. I leave rest of my property to B.” B dies when D is 18. B’s will gives all to IRC. B’s heirs are D + G + H. AMBIGUITIES Rule in Shelley’s Case Apply? Destructability Doctrine Applies? If no Destructability, what is supposed to happen if B dies & D alive but not 21? ANALYSIS & BRANCHES OF DECISION TREE IN WRITE-UP ON COURSE PAGE

SHENANDOAH: Review Problem 4U APPALACHIAN TRAIL

(4U) (Shenandoah) R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” C on land writes novels & does deals on phone. C dies; J is not 35. NOT AMBIGUITY Common Law v. Today (Deals on the Phone) Cf. Medical or Law School, which date to medieval Europe

(4U) (Shenandoah) R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS IN GRANT? Life Estate or Fee? When Does J’s Interest Take Effect? Details in Review Problem Write-Up on Course Page

(4U) (Shenandoah) R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” C on land writes novels & does deals on phone. C dies; J is not 35 AMBIGUITIES ARISING AFTER Condition Violated by Writing/Deal-Making? Destructibility Apply? Details in Review Problem Write-Up on Course Page

(4U) (Shenandoah) R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” C on land writes novels & does deals on phone. C dies; J is not 35 BRANCHES OF DECISION TREE Lots of Variations in Sample Qs

CHAPTER 5: ADVERSE POSSESSION THE PREMIERE EVENT

Adverse Possession: Overview Connections to Rest of Course Type of Involuntary Transfer of Property Rights Like Shack & JMB & Eminent Domain Loss of Property Rights for Policy Reasons About Relationship of Property & Time Like Chapters 3 and 4 Here: Losing Property Rights Via Passage of Time

Adverse Possession: Overview Arises from Statutes of Limitations (SoL) Length of State Statutes Varies (5-30 years) If don’t act to stop trespasser quickly enough, can forfeit right to do so Operates differently than other SoL Running of SoL Doesn’t Completely Bar Recovery for Original Owner (OO) BUT Result if OO loses is legal transfer of title

Adverse Possession: Overview Essence of Adverse Possession (AP): Can get title by “possessing” otherwise unused land for length of SoL “Possession” v. Ownership AP Doctrine largely about how much & what kind of possession necessary to transfer ownership Reqmts beyond time basically to ensure APor sufficiently possessing OO not really possessing

Adverse Possession: Overview Three Common Fact Patterns 1.Mistaken Owner w Color of Title (~Ray; Howard) 2.Boundary Dispute between Neighbors (Miami Herald Article) 3.Outsider “Squatting” (Lutz; E. 13 th St.; Bell)

YELLOWSTONE (DQ5.01) GIANT GEYSER

Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ5.01: AP as SoL (Yellowstone) Purposes Behind SoL Generally? (E.g., Torts/Contracts)