CB (5) – Estates and Future Interests – Flashcards

Feudel system. They received the right to occupy, possess, and use specific parcels of land owned by the king. In return, they provide services and incidents to the king.

In turn, tenants-in-chiefs created sub-tenants who worked the land.

Land goes to the state when someone dies w/o heirs.

derived from the latin word status

Fee Simple Life Estate Fee Tail Fee Simple Determinable Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent Fee Simple Subject to Executory Limitation

Denotes the legal possession of feudal fiefdom.

ceremony by which land would be transferred. Deeds did not become customary until SOF enacted in 1677.

?

Transfer by deed Transfer by will Transfer by intestate succession

A living person. Completed transfer called conveyance or grant.

Property of decedent transferred by a will. Completed transfer of real property called a devise. Testator or testatrix, recipient is devisee.

When a person dies w/o will. Usually transferred to heirs.

Freely alienable - it can be sold or given away durin the owner's lifetime. devisable - it can be transferred by will at death Descendible - it can pass by laws of intestate succession if owner dies w/o will

Entities other than persons do not have heirs. Since corporations are not persons, they are followed by successors and assigns.

(fee simple absolute) - P purchased land from D contingent upon D being able to convey title to the premises free and clear of any defect of title that would make it unmarketable. Title did not mention "and heirs," required for fee simple absolute claims. - Common law requires "and his heirs", therefore, the not a fee simple absolute title.

(1) Issue and surviving spouse: issue are lineal descendants - children, grandchildren. (2) Parents and their issue: to your parents, or if dead, their kids. (3) Ancestors and collaterals: If no spouse, issue, or parents, ancestors or collaterals. (4) Escheat: If no relatives, property belongs to state.

Alienable Not devisable or descendible A Reversion follows a life estate

(life estate) FACTS: Lide died, leaving a holographic will. Unclear whether a life estate or fee simple absolute. She left it to Evelyn White, and her heirs sued White. State statute in favor of fee simple if language of will ambiguous. HOLDING: Court ruled it was a fee simple with intent to restrain, but restraint unenforceable. - "I wish B to have my home to live in and not to be sold" → not clear. Testatrix's apparent testamentary restraint that her house not be sold does not evidence a clear intent to pass only a life estate to overcome the law's strong presumption that a fee simple interest was conveyed. - Restraint on alienation not enough evidence to demonstrate intent to create a life estate. - Restraint void for public policy. Dissent → she was not trying to create unenforceable restraint on a fee simple, but rather a life estate.

• Disabling restraint: A restraint that prevents the transferee from transferring her interest; example: O conveys "to B, and any conveyance by B is void." • Forfeiture restraint: A restraint that leads to a forfeiture of title if the transferee attempts to transfer her interest; example: O conveys "to B, but if B ever tries to sell the estate, then to D." • Promissory restraint: A restraint that stipulates that the transferee promises no to transfer her interest; example; O conveys "to B, and B promises that she will not sell the estate."

If the language of a deed or will is ambiguous, the court will interpret it in accordance with the transferor's intent.

Amount of income property could produce during each year (lease value).

-Important to modern trusts. - Essence of the trust is separation of legal and equitable title. - A trustee holds legal title to the trust property and manages the assets as a fiduciary for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries, who hold equitable title.

(life estate and waste) FACTS: Man dies, leaves a life estate to wife, to be passed on to son and daughter upon his death. Mom and son sought to raze a useless barn, daughter sued to enjoin them from doing so. Trial court denied injunction, but awarded daughter price of barn $3,200. HOLDING: Court ruled that since CL not recognized in Ohio, that waste was anything that altered identity of leased premise, that someone with remainder interest may not prohibit someone with life estate from making changes that do not decrease the value of property.

• Voluntary Waste: results from an affirmative act that significantly reduces the value of the property (demolishing a valuable house). • Permissive Waste: failure to take reasonable care to protect estate. • Ameliorative waste: from an affirmative act that leads to a substantial change in the property and increases its value (building a swimming pool).

the heirs of his body - Only legal in RI, Delaware, Maine, Massachussets - Just converts to FSA in other states

(Fee Simple subject to an Executory limitation). FACTS: Action to quiet title. Land was deeded to the Trustees of School District No. I, predecessors to the Defendants in this case, the County Board of School Trustees (Defendants), in this case, providing the land was to be used for school purposes only. Otherwise the land was to revert back to the Grantors. Later, the original grantors of the land attempted to convey their reversionary interest in this land to the Jacqmains. The Jacqmains later conveyed this reversionary interest to the Plaintiffs in this case, Herbert L. Mahrenholz and Betty Mahrenholz (Plaintiffs). Hutton, the son of the original grantors of the land later conveyed all of his interest in the land deeded to the school to the Plaintiffs. Prior to this conveyance to the Plaintiffs, Hutton had relinquished all of his rights of reverter or rights of re-entry to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs brought suit to quiet title. The trial court found that the Plaintiff could not have acquired a reversionary interest in the land from the Jacqmains o r Hutton. The trial court found that the original deed language conveyed a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent followed by a right of re-entry for condition broken, rather than a determinable fee followed by a possibility of reverter. The appeals court determined that the Plaintiffs could not have acquired an future interest from the Jacqmains, as neither interest may be transferred by will or by inter vivos conveyance. The appeals court stated the only possible manner in which the Plaintiffs could have acquired an interest in the land from Hutton was if he had a possibility of reverter in the land and thus owned the school property when it ceased to be used for school purposes. RULE: The common law states future interests in land by possibility of reverter or right of re-entry are inheritable, but are not transferable by will or by inter vivos conveyance. The use of the word "only" in a deed followed by the words for school purpose, demonstrates a limited grant subject to a condition, thus, creating a fee simple determinable. The phrase, "otherwise to revert to grantors herein" coupled with the limiting word of "only" triggers a mandatory return. HOLDING: The language in the deed created a fee simple determinable followed by a possibility of reverter. Discussion. A future interest gives the holder the right or the possibility of an estate. A fee simple determinable conveys a possibility of reverter that automatically reverts to the grantor upon the occurrence of a stated event. A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent conveys a right of entry that is not automatic, but the grantor must exercise his right of entry. The significance of this case is during this time period these future interests could not be conveyed by inter vivos gift or sale, thus the only way the Plaintiffs could have acquired the school land was if the grantor in the case had a present interest in the land to convey.

FACTS: Rigney left land to city of Takoma to be used to bring water. Upon not bringing water, Rigney can re-enter). Passed on to city, not used for water. HOLDING: No on AP, since AP only tolls when Rigney heirs re-enters, but yes on "unreasonable" amount of time.

Reversion Possibility of Reverter Right of Entry

Indefeasibly vested remainder Vested Remainder STD, STO Contingent Remainder Executory Interest (see below)

Shifting Springing

1) Wait and See Test 2) Reformation or Cy Pres 3) Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities

wait to see if it vests in 21 years.

A court my rewrite the language of the conveyance or devise to carry out the transferor's intent as closely as possible and thereby validate the interest.

interest valid if 1) it meets the requirements of the common law rule, or 2) using the wait-and-see approach, it actually vests or terminates within 90 years after its creation.