CHAPTER 4 TEST LOGISTICS FOR TEST THURSDAY Room Assignments: – Last name A-P: Room F309 – Last...

CHAPTER 4 TEST LOGISTICSFOR TEST THURSDAY

•Room Assignments:– Last name A-P: Room F309– Last name R-Z: Room A110

•Have #2 Pencils Ready•Get Anonymous Grading Number from MyUM & Bring It

PRE-TEST OFFICE HOURS•Today: 2:00-6:00 pm (My Office)•Tomorrow: 8:00-10:00 am & 1:30-3:30 pm (My Office)•Wednesday: 3:00-8:00 pm @ B449 (Library Study Room)

CHAPTER 4 TEST LOGISTICS

TEST IS ESSENTIALLY DONE•A couple of completely new problems•Mostly questions from posted Bank or Tests, some altered a bit, all with new names•Contains names of all students from Acadia, Denali, Everglades & Glacier (except Matts and Erins)•Apologies to those of you I had to kill off.

CORRECTION TO WORKBOOK (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 …




• 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.


O to A for life, then to B[,] on condition that B has passed the bar.


• B has a Contingent Remainder

– Condition is 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.


• B has a Contingent Remainder

O to A for life, then to B, on condition on condition that if B ever fails the bar, then to C.that if B ever fails the bar, then to C.


• B has a Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment

• C has a Shifting Executory InterestC has a Shifting Executory Interest

Vested Remainder Subject to Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment (1) v.Divestment (1) v.

Vested Remainder in F.S. subj. to Vested Remainder in F.S. subj. to Exec. Lim. (2)Exec. Lim. (2)(1) To A for life, then to B & her heirs, but if B dies but if B dies

before turning 21, then to C & his heirs.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 but if B ever uses the land for commercial purposes, to ever uses the land for commercial purposes, to C & his heirs. C & his heirs. •Condition cannot occur before B takes possession.

TERMINOLOGY: ME v. WORKBOOK

To A for life, then to B & her heirs, but if B dies before but if B dies before turning 21, then to C & his heirs.turning 21, then to C & his heirs.•Condition might occur before B takes possession, but also might occur after.•WORKBOOK: Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment in Fee Simple on Executory Limitation•ME: Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment (as long as it might occur before)


O to A for life, then to B, but if B ever but if B ever allows A to be moved into a nursing allows A to be moved into a nursing home, to Chome, 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


O to A for life, then to B, but if B ever allows A but if B ever allows A to be moved into a nursing home, to Cto be moved into a nursing home, 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

QUESTIONS?

Shapira v. Union National Bank GLACIER: DQ71-73

Glacier Mountain Lion

GLACIER: DQ71

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS

We’ll Explore Shapira Reasoning by Looking at Five Key Distinctions

Drawn by the Opinion

GLACIER: DQ71

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1 Gift conditioned upon religious faith of

beneficiary v.

Gift conditioned upon marriage to

person of particular faith Why Relevant?

GLACIER: DQ71


beneficiary v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person

of particular faith

• Coercing Belief v. Conduct

• Administrability

GLACIER: DQ71


beneficiary v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person

of particular faith

• Coercing Belief v. Conduct –Note View of Marriage in 1977–Can Use to Support Conditions Requiring

Conduct Affecting Religious Concerns but not Coercing Belief

• Administrability

GLACIER: DQ71

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.

GLACIER: DQ71

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?

GLACIER: DQ71

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #2

Gift conditioned upon divorce v.

Gift conditioned upon marriage to

person of particular faith (maybe )Why Relevant?

GLACIER: DQ71

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” (issue often occurs in law)

GLACIER: DQ71

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #3 Conditional gift with “gift over” to

third partyv.

Conditional gift without “gift over”

Why Relevant?

GLACIER: DQ71

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #3 Conditional gift with “gift over” to

third partyv. Conditional gift without “gift over”

Comprehensive Plan (likely)v. “In Terrorem” Condition (maybe)

GLACIER: DQ71

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #4 Forcing a marriage as a condition of a

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

GLACIER: DQ71


Quaker Men (Maddox) v.

Jewish Women (Shapira)

Why Relevant?

Richard Nixon (per Resnick)

GLACIER: DQ71


Quaker Men (Maddox) v.

Jewish Women (Shapira)

• Quakers = Too Few Available Partners • E.g., you must marry one of the Bronte

Sisters

Shapira v. Union National Bank GLACIER: DQ72

• Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.

• How few partners must there be to meet the test?



• If you were living in a state with that test, how could you prove whether it was met?



• Assuming that some partial restraints on marriage are allowed, is the Maddox rule a good result?


Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable

where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.

Good result?

•Too much restriction on grantee v. •Grantor’s Rights (can always argue that grantors should be able to dispose of their own property as they wish).


Should a court enforce conditions that limit or

mandate religious behavior for the grantee?

ALL: DQ70 = Big Underlying Q

Why should we allow grantors to have any control at all of what

happens to land after they have died?

• Might say can choose who gets, but only can give fee simple absolute

• Maybe allow life estates & vested remainders but no conditions on use

Problems 4P-4S (Review)• We’ll Go Through Today in Time We Have– Identify & Discuss Key Ambiguities/Questions– Do Some Possible Iterations

• Slides Posted for Today Will Include All on These Problems (Even Those We Don’t Get Through)

• I’ll Post Memo with Some Additional Follow-Through

• Tomorrow We Start Chapter 5 (Materials & Assignments Already Posted)

OLYMPIC: Problem 4P

SUNSET IN THE PARK

4P: Olympic

Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.”

AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS?

4P: OlympicRenee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs,

but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.”

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

(4P: Olympic) AMBIGUITIES

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

(4P: Olympic) 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?

(4P: Olympic) 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.

(Olympic: 4P) AMBIGUITIES

• R alive or dead?

• M’s interest intended to cut off life estate?

• Condition void?• Today or “At Common Law”?

(Olympic: 4P) 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 ?

(Olympic: 4P) 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 alive or dead?• M’s interest intended to cut off life estate?

• Condition void?• Today or “At Common Law”?

(Olympic: 4P) 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?


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 14 or engaged to be married soon

• Might argue concern about effects on safe pregnancies

– Bigger deal if S is ill and might die before 35 (Ibeh)

• If void, pencil out condition & resulting interest in MIf void, pencil out condition & resulting interest in M


• R alive or dead?• M’s interest intended to cut off life estate?• Condition void?

• Today or “At Common Law”?

(Olympic: 4P) 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?

(4P) 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 simple absolute

• NOTE: Even at common law, a grant “to my heirs” was presumed to be in fee simple; no need to write “to my heirs and their heirs.”

REVUE:“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”


Created a Traditional

Fee Tail

Traditional Fee Taileliminated;

state statutes provide

different results when

this language used

Doctrine of Destructability of Contingent Remainders


Appliedeverywhere

Eliminated in allstates except

Florida

(Olympic: 4P) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.”

Work Through Decision Tree:One Example


• Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today.

–S?


• Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today.

–S: Life Estate–R’s Heirs?


• Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today.– S: Life Estate

–R’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder in F.S.–R?


• Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today.– S: Life Estate– R’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder

–R: Reversion–M?


• Example: Condition void, Renee alive, today– S: Life Estate– R’s Heirs: Contingent Remainder– R: Reversion

–M: Nothing

YOSEMITE: Problems 4Q-4R

HALF DOME

(4Q) (Yosemite): 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.


(YOSEMITE: 4Q) : 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?

NOT AMBIGUITIES• Common Law v. Today (Ad Agency)• Who is X’s “heir”: Y not P



AMBIGUITIES?• Condition Valid?



AMBIGUITIES?• Condition Valid? – If in Nevada or other jurisdiction where

prostitution legal.

–If not?



AMBIGUITIES?• Condition Valid? – If in jurisdiction where prostitution legal.– If not, pencil out both condition and the grant to

heirs dependent on it, leaving B with Fee Simple Absolute.

• Heirs take automatically v. must act? (Arguments)

(Yosemite: 4Q) : 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• Condition in 1st Clause

Must Act• Two Clauses• “can take it”• Presumption

(4R) (Yosemite)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 (ESPECIALLY IF ESSAY Q)!!Multiple Variations in Old Tests

(Yosemite: 4R) 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


(Yosemite: 4R) 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?• Destructibility Apply?

NOT AMBIGUITIES• Common Law v. Today (Deals on the Phone)• Cf. Medical or Law School, which date to medieval Europe

(YOSEMITE: 4R) 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


AMBIGUITIES• Life Estate or Fee? – Arguments/Missing Facts?

(YOSEMITE 4R) 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


• Life Estate or Fee? – “support & benefit” v. presumption of fee– “then to J” looks like remainder– Check age of J (more likely fee if J very young)– Is condition intended to be just on C (more likely life estate)

or on whoever owns the land (more likely fee)?– Check relationship between R & C: Any reason to think it’s

a support life estate?

• Note that arguments about whether J’s interest intended to cut off life estate are similar.



Condition Violated?



Condition Violated?•Maybe literally because commercial transactions taking place at least partially on site. (Literal arguments generally taken seriously when interpreting grants)•BUT: – Still being used as residence, so “supporting” C– Customers not coming to site to shop– Pretty common for people to work some at home & do online

transactions•Could check cases or local zoning laws on “commercial purposes”• Was R aware that C wrote novels at home? If so, presumably

would have said something more specific if intended to prevent (Bandstra)



If C had life estate & when C dies, condition not violated: •J had contingent remainder; condition not met.•R (or Successor = S) had reversion.

What Happens at C’s Death?



If C had life estate & when C dies, condition not violated: •J had contingent remainder; condition not met.•R (or Successor = S) had reversion.

•What Happens at C’s Death?– If destructability: R or S has fee simple absolute.– If no destructability: • R or S has fee simple on executory limitation• J has springing executory interest J has springing executory interest

OLYMPIC: Problem 4S

SUNSET IN THE PARK

PROBLEM 4S (Olympic)

• T (in will): “to the Holy Shrine Church to be used for church purposes, but if not, to my son D if he is still living.”

• Use of Property:– Parking Lot– Empty for Several Months– Winter Homeless Shelter Run by Parishioner

• D dies & leaves interest to J



AMBIGUITIES in GRANT?



AMBIGUITIES in GRANT• Is limit on HSC supposed to survive D? • Is Dick’s interest self-executing or did he have

to act to retake the property?

PROBLEM 4S (Olympic): T (in will): “to the Holy Shrine Church to be used for church purposes, but if not, to my son

D if he is still living.”

• Use of Property Violate Grant?:– Parking Lot– Empty for Several Months– Winter Homeless Shelter Run by Parishioner

CHAPTER 4 TEST LOGISTICS FOR TEST THURSDAY Room Assignments: – Last name A-P: Room F309 – Last...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER 4 TEST LOGISTICS FOR TEST THURSDAY Room Assignments: – Last name A-P: Room F309 – Last...