Review pRoblem R Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS?

Review pRoblem R R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M” Ambiguities: R alive or dead? M’s interest intended to cut off life estate? Condition void? Today or “At Common Law”?

(R) AMBIGUITIES R alive or dead? M’s interest intended to cut off life estate? Condition void? Today or “At Common Law”?

(R) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” R alive or dead: Why matters?

(R) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” R alive, “to my heirs” = contingent remainder R dead, “To my heirs” = vested remainder subject to divestment.

(R) AMBIGUITIES R alive or dead? M’s interest intended to cut off life estate? Condition void? Today or “At Common Law”?

(R) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” M’s interest cut off life estate? Arguments ?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” M’s interest cut off life estate? –punishes S for early marriage –discourages fortune hunters –maybe concern w Stacy support for Marni –no “then to Marni” BUT: could have placed right after life estate Could check for other facts (ages of S&M) (!)

(R) AMBIGUITIES R alive or dead? M’s interest intended to cut off life estate? Condition void? Today or “At Common Law”?

(R) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” Partial Restraint on Marriage: OK to Postpone Marriage Until 35?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Partial Restraint on Marriage OK? Probably OK if only effects remainder (no harm to S) Check S’s age –Not much effect if S is 33 –Bigger deal if S is 17 or engaged to be married soon If void, pencil out interest to MIf void, pencil out interest to M

(R) AMBIGUITIES R alive or dead? M’s interest intended to cut off life estate? Condition void? Today or “At Common Law”?

(R) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” At Common Law or Today: Why Matters?

(R) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.” At Common Law: M’s interest presumed to be in Life Estate Today: M’s interest presumed to be in fee

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today –S?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today –S: Life Estate –R’s Heirs?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today –S: Life Estate –R’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder –R?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today –S: Life Estate –R’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder –R: Reversion –M?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today –S: Life Estate –R’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder –R: Reversion –M: Nothing

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition valid, cuts off life estate, Renee dead, today: S?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition valid, cuts off life estate, Renee dead, today: S: Life Estate on Executory Limitation R’s Heirs?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition valid, cuts off life estate, Renee dead, today: S: Life Estate on Executory Limitation R’s Heirs: Vested Remainder in f.s. subj to divestment M?

(R) R “to S for life, then to my heirs, but should S marry before she turns 35, to M.” Example: Condition valid, cuts off life estate, Renee dead, today: S: Life Estate on Executory Limitation R’s Heirs: Vested Remainder in f.s. subj to divestment M: Shifting Executory Interest (in f.s.)

(S) : Xaviera, in her valid will: “I grant Brothelacre to Betsy if it continues to be used as a house of prostitution, but if not, my heirs can take it. I leave the rest of my property to my friend Phil.” Xaviera was survived by no issue or spouse, but by her mother, Yvonne. Betsy later closed the existing brothel and replaced it with an ad agency.

(S) : X, in valid will: “I grant Brothelacre to B if continues to be used as house of prost., but if not, my heirs can take it. I leave the rest of my property to friend P.” X survived by mother, Y. B closed brothel and opened ad agency. AMBIGUITIES?

(S) : X, in valid will: “I grant Brothelacre to B if continues to be used as house of prost., but if not, my heirs can take it. I leave the rest of my property to friend P.” X survived by mother, Y. B closed brothel and opened ad agency. AMBIGUITIES? Condition Valid? Heirs take automatically v. must act Ad agency violate grant?

(S) : X, in valid will: “I grant Brothelacre to B if continues to be used as house of prost., but if not, my heirs can take it. I leave the rest of my property to friend P.” X survived by mother, Y. B closed brothel and opened ad agency. NOT AMBIGUITIES Common Law v. Today (Ad Agency) Who is X’s “heir”: Y not P

(S) : X, in valid will: “I grant Brothelacre to B if continues to be used as house of prost., but if not, my heirs can take it. I leave the rest of my property to friend P.” X survived by mother, Y. B closed brothel and opened ad agency. AMBIGUITIES? Condition Valid?

(S) : X, in valid will: “I grant Brothelacre to B if continues to be used as house of prost., but if not, my heirs can take it. I leave the rest of my property to friend P.” X survived by mother, Y. B closed brothel and opened ad agency. AMBIGUITIES? Heirs take automatically v. must act?

(S) : X, in valid will: “I grant Brothelacre to B if continues to be used as house of prost., but if not, my heirs can take it.” Automatically Single Purpose Time Language Must Act Two Clauses “can take it” Presumption

(U) 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 (VERY HARD!!)

(U) 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?

(U) 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 Life Estate or Fee? Condition Violated by Writing/Deal-Making? When Does J’s Interest Take Effect? Destructability Apply?

Note: No Ambiguity re Today v. Common Law C writes novels & does deals on phone.

(U) 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 Life Estate or Fee?

(U) 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 Condition Violated by Writing/Deal-Making?

(U) 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 When Does J’s Interest Take Effect?

(U) 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 Destructability Apply? Only matters if C has Life Estate

(T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. I leave the rest of my property to B.” Beatrice?

(T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. I leave the rest of my property to B.” Beatrice = Life Estate Dolly?

(T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. I leave the rest of my property to B.” Beatrice = Life Estate Dolly = Contingent Remainder in L.E. B’s Heirs?

(T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. [Rest] of my property to B.” Beatrice = Life Estate Dolly = Contingent Remainder in L.E. B’s Heirs = Contingent Remainder in f.s. (unascertained) Other?

(T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. [Rest] of my property to B.” Beatrice = Life Estate Dolly = Contingent Remainder in L.E. B’s Heirs = Contingent Remainder in f.s. (unascertained) Reversion in A; passes to B in will.

(T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. [Residue] to B.” B Dies; D is 18 What now? Check for Destructability Doctrine

(T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. [Residue] to B.” B Dies; D is 18 If Destructability Doctrine Applies: –D’s Remainder is Destroyed –Remainder in B’s Heirs Becomes Fee Simple Absolute in B’s Heirs (D + G + H)

( T) A in will: “to B for life, then to D if she turns 21 for life, then to B’s heirs. [Residue] to B.”B Dies; D is 18 If Destructability Doctrine Doesn’t Apply: –Reversion becomes FS on Exec. Limitation Held by B; Passes through will to IRC –D has springing exec interest –Remainder in B’s Heirs vests in B + D + G; stays & waits for end of D’s life