put assignment #4 in envelope on chair
DESCRIPTION
PUT ASSIGNMENT #4 IN ENVELOPE ON CHAIR. Greatest Hits of 1790 PERFORMANCES 1979-80 Philharmonia Virtuosi of New York Richard Kapp, Conductor. WARM-UP/REVIEW. Terminology. TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK. Workbook: Adds language to define nature of future interests in grantor. E.g., - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
PUT ASSIGNMENT #4 IN ENVELOPE ON CHAIRGreatest Hits of 1790 PERFORMANCES 1979-80
Philharmonia Virtuosi of New YorkRichard Kapp, Conductor
WARM-UP/REVIEW
Terminology
TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK
• Workbook: Adds language to define nature of future interests in grantor. E.g., – Reversion in Fee Simple Absolute
– Poss. Of Reverter in Fee Simple Absolute
TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK
• Workbook: Adds language to define nature of future interests in grantor. E.g., – Reversion in Fee Simple Absolute– Poss. Of Reverter in Fee Simple Absolute
• My Test Questions: Only will add this sort of language for remainders
TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK
• Workbook: Describes all present possessory estates as a “Possessory Estate in …” Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estate, etc.
TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK
• Workbook: Describes all present possessory estates as a “Possessory Estate in …” Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estate, etc.
• My Test Questions: Will not use the italicized phrase.
TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK
• Workbook: Describes all present possessory estates as a “Possessory Estate in …” Fee Simple Absolute, Life Estate, etc.
• Maybe there to help you remember important rule: You can have only one present possessory estate at any given time with respect to a particular parcel of land.
TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK
Defeasible fee in the form of a Fee Simple Determinable BUT with the future interest in third party:
• Me (& Restatement): “Fee Simple on Executory Limitation”
• Workbook: “Fee Simple Determinable” (See Workbook p.72 fn19)
TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK
I will post (in section on e-mail Qs & responses) any other relevant inconsistencies or ambiguities regarding the workbook that arise over the course of the week.
WARM-UP/REVIEW
Working with Conditional/Defeasible
Present Estates
WARM-UP/REVIEWWorking with Conditional/ Defeasible Present Estates
1. Identifying Defeasible Fees
IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES
W ho Holds Future Interest?G rantor (or unnam ed) or 2d G rantee
IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES
If G rantor (or unnam ed):H ow does it operate?
Self-Executing or G rantor M ust Act
If 2d G rantee:Fee S im ple on Executory L im ita tion
(p lus Executory In terest)
W ho Holds Future Interest?G rantor (or unnam ed) or 2d G rantee
IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES
• Remember, unlike the Workbook, I will give you ambiguous grants and you will need to be able to recognize arguments about whether the language should be interpreted to end the fee automatically when the condition is violated or instead to give the future interest-holder a choice.
IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES
• Remember, unlike the Workbook, I will give you ambiguous grants.
• More general point: Most of my questions are harder than the end-of-chapter problems in the workbook.
IDENTIFYING DEFEASIBLE FEES
If Self-Executing:Fee S im ple D eterm inab le
(p lus Possib ility o f R everter)
If Grantor M ust Act:Fee S im ple on C ond ition Subsequent
(p lus R ight o f Entry)
If Grantor (or unnam ed):H ow does it opera te?
Self-Executing or G rantor M ust Act
If 2d G rantee:Fee S im ple on Executory L im ita tion
(p lus Executory In terest)
W ho Holds Future Interest?G rantor (or unnam ed) or 2d G rantee
WARM-UP/REVIEWWorking with
Conditional/Defeasible Present Estates
1. Identifying Defeasible Fees
2. Distinguishing Defeasible Fees from Finite Estates + Contingent Remainders
DEFEASIBLE FEES
v. CONTINGENT REMAINDERS
DEFEASIBLE FEES
• PRESENT INTEREST IS FEE
CONTINGENTREMAINDERS
• PRESENT INTEREST IS FINITE
DEFEASIBLE FEES
• PRESENT ESTATE CUT OFF IF CONDITION MET
CONTINGENTREMAINDERS
• PRESENT ESTATE TERMINATES NATURALLY
DEFEASIBLE FEES
• FUTURE INTEREST IN EITHER GRANTOR OR GRANTEE
CONTINGENTREMAINDERS
• REMAINDER IN GRANTEE PLUS REVERSION IN GRANTOR
Pepe grants Tealacre to Rory and his heirs, but if Totie loses 100 pounds, she may enter and retake the land. (Fee Simple
on Executory Limitation + Executory Interest)
Pepe grants Tealacre to Rory for life, then to Totie if she loses 100 pounds.
(Life Estate + Contingent Remainder)
WARM-UP/REVIEWWorking with
Conditional/Defeasible Present Estates
1. Identifying Defeasible Fees2. Distinguishing Defeasible Fees from
Finite Estates + Contingent Remainders
3.Defeasible Finite Estates
DEFEASIBLE FINITE ESTATES
Can create conditions cutting off finite estates, yielding, for example:
• Life Estate Determinable
• Term of Years on Condition Subsequent
• Life Estate on Executory Limitation
Defeasible Finite Estates: Example (7H): Thelma "to Louise for 99 years if Louise so long live."
Louise: Term of years determinable.
Thelma: Possibility of Reverter +
Reversion =
Reversion (Merger)
WARM-UP/REVIEWWorking with
Conditional/Defeasible Present Estates
1. Identifying Defeasible Fees2. Distinguishing Defeasible Fees from Finite
Estates + Contingent Remainders3. Defeasible Finite Estates
4.Timing Ambiguity
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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: POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
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.
Seems odd to punish Andrew for Brian’s life choices, so absent clear reason, likely treat as just cutting off B’s remainder
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.
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.
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
Conditions So Abhorrent …
You Can’t Even Impose Them
on Your Own Children
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
• Total Restraint on Alienation
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
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)
In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life, then to Jessica.
• Total Restraint on Alienation is Invalid• Pencil Out Unlawful Condition (and executory interest
that turns on it)• Result is a Vested Remainder in Fee Simple Absolute
In 2006, Brian grants Mason-acre “to Dolly for life, then to Jessica.
• Total Restraint on Alienation is Invalid• Pencil Out Unlawful Condition (and executory interest
that turns on it)• Result is a Vested Remainder in Fee Simple Absolute• Nasty Exam Q from Fall 2007 (b/c at End of Test)
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
• Total Restraint on Alienation– Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable
• Casebook says only if Promissory (P625)• Other sources say sometimes Forfeiture
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• See Casebook at P632-33
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS• Total Restraint on Alienation
– Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable– Most Restrictions Restrain Alienation to Some
Extent– Use Restrictions (Only by X?)
• OK if Charitable• Some jurisd: Non-Charitable = Unreas. Restraint
on Alienation
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
• Doing Criminal Acts
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
• Total Restraint on Marriage– Some Jurisd: Maybe OK if Life Estate
– Some Jurisd allow partial restraints• Until turn 25• Shapira
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
• Obtaining Divorce
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
• Race-Based Limitations (Unenforceable)– Sex-Based Upheld w/in Family
– Religion: (Discuss w Shapira)
(7O) Archie in will: “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Residue to daughter Gloria.
Edith moves in with male friend, Sherman. Edith subsequently dies, devising her property to Sherman.
(7O): 3 QUESTIONS1. “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so
long as she remains unmarried.” Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?
(7O): 3 QUESTIONS1. Life estate determinable or fee simple
determinable?
2. Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy?
(7O): 3 QUESTIONS1. Life estate determinable or fee simple
determinable?
2. Is condition restraining 2d marriage void?
3. Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage?
(7O): 3 QUESTIONS1. Life estate determinable or fee simple
determinable?
2. Is condition restraining 2d marriage void?
3. Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage?
Then Work Through Decision-Tree
(7O): 1st QUESTION: ARGUMENTS?
“To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”
Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?
(7O): 1st QUESTION: ARGUMENTS?“To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she
remains unmarried.” Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?
• Presumption of Fee Simple• Use and Benefit Sounds Like Life Estate• Condition is Consistent with Intent to Support• Reasonable to Think Archie would try to Protect
Gloria (not Edith’s daughter)
(7O): 1st QUESTION• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long
as she remains unmarried.”
• Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable A G =– Remaining Future Interest in Archie passed to
Gloria through residuary clause in will
(7O): 1st QUESTION• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long
as she remains unmarried.”
• Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable A G = Possibility of Reverter
(7O): 1st QUESTION
• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”
• Some: E = Life Estate Determinable A G =
(7O): 1st QUESTION
• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”
• Some: E = Life Estate Determinable A G = Possibility of Reverter +Reversion = Reversion (Merger) (See Problem 7H)
(7O): 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
(7O): 2d QUESTION: ARGUMENTS?
• Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy?
(7O): 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
(7O): 2d QUESTION
• Is condition restraining 2d marriage void as against public policy? Result:–If not void, nothing changes
–If void, pencil out condition
(7O): 2d QUESTION
• If condition void, pencil out condition
–“To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”
(7O): 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
(7O): 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
(7O): 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
(7O): 3d QUESTION:ARGUMENTS?
• Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage? (Only need to resolve if condition is valid).
(7O): 3d QUESTION• Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on
marriage?
– If yes, Gloria gets fee simple absolute.– If no (Restatement position) nothing
changes
(7O): 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?
(7O): 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
(7O): 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?
(7O): 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)
LOGISTICS
• Info on Friday’s Test Posted. Qs?
• Sweet Sixteen Pool
• Rest of Syllabus, Materials & Assignments Posted
Shapira v. Union National Bank
EAGLES: DQS105-107
SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS (DQ105A)
Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary
v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith
Why Relevant?
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 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 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 (DQ105A)
Gift conditioned upon divorce
v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith
Why Relevant?
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 (DQ105A)
Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party
v. Conditional gift without “gift over”
Why Relevant?
SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS
Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party
v. Conditional gift without “gift over”
Comprehensive plan
v. “In Terrorem” condition
SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS (DQ105A)
Forcing a marriage as condition of completed gift
v. Withholding gift until marriage made
Why Relevant?
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: DISTINCTIONSQuaker men (Maddox)
v. Jewish women (Shapira)Why Relevant?
SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS
Quaker men (Maddox)
v. Jewish women (Shapira)• Quakers = 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?
RULESRULES THAT THAT FURTHER FURTHER
ALIENABILITYALIENABILITY
featuring featuring FalconsFalcons
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
• Remainder or executory interest in grantor’s heirs treated as future interest in grantor
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
• Remainder or executory interest in grantor’s heirs treated as future interest in grantor
• Today usually a rule of construction, not a rule of law
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
• Remainder or executory interest in grantor’s heirs treated as future interest in grantor
• Today usually a rule of construction, not a rule of law
• Abolished in many jurisdictions
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
• Remainder or executory interest in grantor’s heirs treated as future interest in grantor
• Today usually a rule of construction, not a rule of law
• Abolished in many jurisdictions
• NOTE: Grantor must be alive at time of grant for DWT to apply
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
Example: While alive, Oscar conveys: “to Agnes for life, then to my heirs.”
Doctrine of Worthier Title
Example: While alive, Oscar conveys: “to Agnes for life, then to my heirs.”
As written:
Agnes has life estate
O’s heirs have contingent remainder
O has reversion
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
O “to Agnes for life, then to my heirs.”
As written: Agnes has life estate
O’s heirs have contingent remainder
O has reversion
If A dies, and no destructability, O has fee simple on exec. limitation & heirs have springing executory interest.
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
O “to Agnes for life, then to my heirs.”As written: Agnes has life estate
O’s heirs have contingent remainderO has reversion
If A dies, and no destructability, O has fee simple on exec. limitation & heirs have springing executory interest.
NOT VERY MARKETABLE!!
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
O “to Agnes for life, then to my heirs.”
Effect of Doctrine:
Agnes has life estate
Remainder in O’s heirs treated as “remainder” in O = reversion.
DOCTRINE OF WORTHIER TITLE
O “to Agnes for life, then to my heirs.”
Effect of Doctrine: Agnes has life estate
Remainder in O’s heirs treated as “remainder” in O = reversion.
If A dies, O has fee simple absolute
(7P): Sleepy “to Happy for life, then to the heirs of Sleepy."
As Written:
Happy?
(7P): Sleepy “to Happy for life, then to the heirs of Sleepy."
As Written:
Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy’s Heirs?
(7P): Sleepy “to Happy for life, then to the heirs of Sleepy."
As Written: Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder
Other?
(7P): Sleepy “to Happy for life, then to the heirs of Sleepy."
As Written: Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder
Sleepy: Reversion
Effect of Doctrine of Worthier Title?
(7P): S “to H for life, then to the heirs
of S." As Written: Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder
Sleepy: Reversion
Effect of Doctrine of Worthier Title:
Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy: Reversion
(7P): S “to H for life, then to the heirs of S.”
Sleepy dies, devising all to ANA. Intestacy statute would give S’s
property to Bashful if no will.Effect As Written? Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder
Sleepy: Reversion
(7P): S “to H for life, then to the heirs of S.”
Sleepy dies, devising all to ANA. Intestacy statute would give S’s
property to Bashful if no will.Effect As Written? Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder Bashful: Vested Remainder
Sleepy: Reversion Nothing (Divests)
(7P): S “to H for life, then to the heirs of S.”
Sleepy dies, devising all to ANA. Intestacy statute would give S’s
property to Bashful if no will.Effect if Doctrine Applies? Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy: Reversion
(7P): S “to H for life, then to the heirs of S.”
Sleepy dies, devising all to ANA. Intestacy statute would give S’s
property to Bashful if no will.Effect if Doctrine Applies?
Happy: Life Estate
Sleepy: Reversion ANA: reversion
RULE OF CONSTRUCTIONINTERPRET GRANT ACCORDING TO
RULE UNLESS EVIDENCE OF GRANTOR’S INTENT TO THE
CONTRARY
Doctrine of Worthier Title as a Rule of Construction
GEORGE LEAVES BUSH-ACRE:
“TO JEB FOR LIFE, THEN TO JEB’S CHILDREN FOR THEIR LIVES,
THEN TO MY HEIRS”
Doctrine of Worthier Title as a Rule of Construction
“TO JEB FOR LIFE, THEN TO JEB’S CHILDREN FOR THEIR LIVES,
THEN TO MY HEIRS”
We presume George would have wanted to regain complete control of Bush-Acre had he thought he would still be alive after Jeb & children all
gone.
Doctrine of Worthier Title as a Rule of Construction
George leaves Bush-acre “to Jeb for life, then to Jeb’s children for their lives, then to my heirs. It is my wish that the Doctrine of Worthier Title
not apply to this grant”
WHAT HAPPENS?
Doctrine of Worthier Title as a Rule of Construction
George leaves Bush-acre “to Jeb for life, then to Jeb’s children for their lives, then to my heirs. It is my wish that the Doctrine of Worthier Title
not apply to this grant”
DON”T APPLY RULE!!
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• RULE OF LAW, NOT RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION
RULE IN SHELLEY’S CASE
• RULE OF LAW, NOT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
• ELIMINATED BY STATUTE IN MOST STATES
(7Qi): Will "to Grace for life, then to Grace's children and
their heirs."Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s
Case?
(7Qi): 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”
(7Qii): Johnny “to Jay for life, then to Jay's heirs if Jay
survives David."
Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?
(7Qii): 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.
(7Qiii): Cher "to Chastity for 100 years if she so long live, then
to Chastity's heirs."
Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?
(7Qiii) : Cher "to Chastity for 100 years if she so long live,
then to Chastity's heirs."
Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case? None.
Chastity has term of years determinable, not life estate.
(7Qiv): Bill "to Chelsea for life." Bill subsequently devises the reversion to Chelsea's heirs.
Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?
(7Qiv): Bill "to Chelsea for life." Bill subsequently devises the reversion to Chelsea's heirs.Effect of the Rule in Shelley’s Case?
None.
Not done in one instrument.
(7Qv): 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?
(7Qv): 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.
(7Qv): 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 Fee Simple
“to X and the Heirs of his Body”
“At Common Law” v. “Today”
Created a Traditional
Fee Tail
Traditional Fee Taileliminated;
state statutes provide different results when
this language usedNot responsible for details
of this
Doctrine of Destructability of Contingent Remainders
“At Common Law” v. “Today”
Appliedeverywhere
Eliminated in allstates except Florida
Doctrine of Worthier Title“At Common Law” v. “Today”
Appliedeverywhere
as Rule of Law
Eliminated in some states;
Rule of Construction in others
Rule in Shelley’s Case“At Common Law” v. “Today”
Appliedeverywhere
as Rule of Law
Eliminated in most states