- Who has the superior claim to title of the office building? Select one.
Answer: The County Museum, because its executory interest automatically vested when the Library ceased using the building for its intended purpose.
The conveyance created a life estate in the son, followed by a fee simple subject to an executory limitation (FSSEL) in the City Library. The County Museum holds a shifting executory interest. When the condition was broken (the Library ceasing to use the building for library purposes), the Library's estate was automatically divested, and title automatically vested in the County Museum. The executory interest does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because it is held by the County Museum, an entity that could exist indefinitely, but the interest would vest or fail upon the cessation of library use, which is not tied to a remote future generation.
- What type of interest in the home does the brother hold? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple absolute, because the condition is void as against public policy.
The condition in the devise is one that encourages divorce. Courts have consistently held that such conditions are void as against public policy. When a condition subsequent in a conveyance is deemed void, the condition is stricken from the conveyance, and the grantee takes the estate free of the condition. In this case, striking the void condition leaves the brother with a fee simple absolute. The sister's executory interest is also void because it is dependent on the invalid condition. This is a specific exception to the general validity of conditions on land use.
- If the daughter completes the sale, what interest will the third-party buyer acquire? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple absolute, because the condition constitutes an invalid restraint on alienation.
The condition is a direct restraint on alienation that limits conveyance to a small group of people (descendants of the grandfather). This type of forfeiture restraint on a fee simple estate is generally held to be an invalid restraint on alienation and is therefore void. When a condition is voided, it is stricken from the deed. The daughter is thus left with a fee simple absolute, which she can freely convey to the third-party buyer. The buyer will receive a fee simple absolute.
- If the municipality builds the road, what will be the status of the title to the land? Select one.
Answer: Title will revert to the shareholders of the dissolved corporation.
This question tests your understanding of fee simple determinable estates and what happens to future interests when the original grantor no longer exists. When you see language like "so long as" followed by a condition and automatic reversion, you're dealing with a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter.
The corporation granted the land with a fee simple determinable - an estate that automatically ends when the specified condition is violated. Here, if the municipality stops maintaining it as a public nature preserve, the land automatically reverts to the grantor. The key issue is what happens to this possibility of reverter when the corporation dissolves.
When a corporation is dissolved, its assets don't simply disappear. They must be distributed according to corporate law, typically to shareholders after debts are paid. The possibility of reverter is a valuable property interest that becomes part of the dissolved corporation's assets. Therefore, when the municipality builds the road and violates the condition, title will revert to the shareholders of the dissolved corporation, making D correct.
A is wrong because dissolution doesn't extinguish existing property rights - those rights transfer to the shareholders. B incorrectly suggests the municipality retains title when the condition is clearly violated. C misapplies escheat, which only occurs when property has no identifiable owner - here, the shareholders are the rightful successors to the corporation's interests.
Remember: When analyzing future interests, always trace what happens to the grantor's rights. Corporate dissolution doesn't eliminate property interests - it transfers them to shareholders, making them the successors to any reversionary rights.
- What is the legal status of the Red Cross's interest in the property? Select one.
Answer: It is an interest that was void from the beginning under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
This question tests your understanding of future interests in property law, specifically how the Rule Against Perpetuities applies to executory interests. When you see language like "so long as" followed by "then to" another party, you're dealing with a fee simple subject to executory limitation with an executory interest.
The Red Cross's interest violates the Rule Against Perpetuities because it might not vest (if ever) within 21 years after a life in being at the time of the grant. The college could potentially use the property for student housing for centuries, then change its use at any point in the distant future. Since this interest could vest beyond the perpetuities period, it's void from the beginning under the Rule.
Choice A incorrectly identifies this as a valid executory interest. While it would be an executory interest structurally, the Rule Against Perpetuities makes it void. Choice B mischaracterizes the interest as a vested remainder - this is wrong because remainders follow natural termination of prior estates, while this interest would cut short the college's estate upon violation of the condition. Also, the passage of time doesn't convert invalid interests into valid ones. Choice C incorrectly calls this a contingent remainder, but again, this is an executory interest because it would divest the college's estate, and it wasn't "destroyed" when the college's estate vested - it was void from creation.
Remember: when analyzing future interests, always check the Rule Against Perpetuities for executory interests and contingent remainders. Any interest that might vest beyond lives in being plus 21 years is void ab initio.
- Who owns the property? Select one.
Answer: The daughter, because her father's executory interest was devisable.
The conveyance created a fee simple subject to an executory limitation in the city, with a shifting executory interest in the son. This executory interest is valid under the Rule Against Perpetuities because it would vest, if at all, in the son, who was a life in being at the time of the grant. Executory interests, like other future interests, are descendible and devisable. Thus, when the son died, his valid executory interest passed to his daughter through his will. When the city ceased using the property as a library, its estate automatically terminated, and title vested in the holder of the executory interest, who is now the daughter.
- What is the best advice to give your client regarding the legal effect of the deed's language? Select one.
Answer: The language likely created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, giving him the option to terminate the organization's estate.
The language in the deed is ambiguous. While it contains some durational feel ("always be maintained as such"), it also uses the phrase "on the condition that." When language is ambiguous, courts express a strong preference for a fee simple subject to condition subsequent over a fee simple determinable to avoid automatic forfeiture of the estate. Therefore, a court would most likely interpret this conveyance as an FSSCS, which gives the heir a right of entry upon breach, but does not cause an automatic reversion. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to a grantor's future interests (possibility of reverter or right of entry).
- What is the legal status of the title to the mansion? Select one.
Answer: The foundation holds title, but its estate is subject to the heir's power to terminate it.
The conveyance created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent (FSSCS) due to the language "but if... the right to re-enter." Upon breach of the condition (leasing for private, non-charitable weddings), the forfeiture is not automatic. The holder of the future interest (the heir) must take affirmative action to exercise their right of entry (also called a power of termination). Until the heir successfully does so, the foundation continues to hold title. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to a grantor's right of entry.
- The church now brings an action to recover possession of the land. What is the likely outcome? Select one.
Answer: The Town will win, because it has acquired title by adverse possession.
The conveyance created a fee simple determinable. When the Town ceased using the land as a playground in 2010, its estate automatically terminated, and the church immediately gained the right to possession. However, the Town remained in possession. The Town's continued possession after its estate ended was hostile to the church's ownership. Since more than 10 years have passed since the church's cause of action accrued in 2010, the Town has acquired title by adverse possession. While title did automatically revert (A), the church's failure to bring suit within the statutory period is fatal to its claim.
- Assuming a court interprets the conveyance as creating a defeasible fee, which statement is most accurate? Select one.
Answer: The court will likely construe the language as a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, allowing the heir to terminate the town's estate.
The language "for use as... and for no other purpose" is ambiguous. It does not contain classic durational language ("so long as") for an FSD or classic conditional language with a right of re-entry ("but if") for an FSSCS. In cases of ambiguity, courts favor the construction that avoids automatic forfeiture. Therefore, a court is most likely to construe the language as creating a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. This gives the grantor's heir a right of entry (a power to terminate the estate) upon breach of the condition but does not cause an automatic forfeiture of title.
- What is the most likely interpretation of the language in the deed? Select one.
Answer: It created a restrictive covenant, entitling the farmer to an injunction or damages, but not forfeiture.
When conditional language is included in a deed without specifying a right of re-entry or automatic reversion, courts are very reluctant to enforce a forfeiture of the estate. Instead, they will interpret the language as creating a restrictive covenant. A covenant is a promise regarding land use, the breach of which can be remedied by an injunction (ordering the barn to be lowered or removed) or monetary damages, but it does not cause the grantee to lose title to the property. This interpretation avoids the harsh result of forfeiture. The language does not contain the clear durational or conditional phrasing required for a defeasible fee.
- Immediately after the brother stayed at the cabin, who owned the property? Select one.
Answer: The nephew, because the daughter's estate automatically terminated upon breach of the condition.
The devise created a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. The daughter's estate was conditioned on not allowing her brother on the property, and upon breach, the property would automatically pass to the nephew (who holds a shifting executory interest). Unlike conditions encouraging divorce or totally restraining alienation, a condition restricting a specific person's access is generally valid. The condition was breached, even if for a good reason. Upon the breach of the condition in an FSSEL, the estate automatically shifts to the holder of the executory interest. Therefore, the nephew became the owner in fee simple absolute.
- Which of the following must the grandchild do to obtain title to the land? Select one.
Answer: File a lawsuit to quiet title or perform some other act of re-entry to terminate the association's former estate.
This question tests your understanding of fee simple subject to condition subsequent, a key property law concept. When you see language like "right to re-enter" combined with a condition, you're dealing with an estate that doesn't automatically terminate when the condition is violated.
The correct answer is D because a fee simple subject to condition subsequent requires the grantor (or their successors) to take affirmative action to reclaim the property. The "right to re-enter" language creates this type of estate, meaning the grandchild must actively exercise that right through legal action like a quiet title suit or physical re-entry. The breach of condition (cessation of agricultural fairs) doesn't automatically transfer title—it merely gives the grantor's heir the right to reclaim it.
A is wrong because automatic reversion only occurs with a "fee simple determinant" (indicated by words like "so long as" or "until"). Here, the "right to re-enter" language creates a condition subsequent, not automatic termination.
B misapplies adverse possession, which is used by strangers to claim property through continuous occupation, not by grantors exercising retained rights under the original deed.
C incorrectly assumes the state takes title when nonprofits dissolve. The Grange Hall association still holds title to the land despite dissolution—the grandchild must terminate that title through re-entry.
Study tip: Remember the distinction between "fee simple determinant" (automatic termination with words like "so long as") and "fee simple subject to condition subsequent" (requires action with "right to re-enter"). The magic words determine whether title reverts automatically or requires the grantor to act.
- Who holds rightful title to the parcel of land? Select one.
Answer: The son, because the school district's estate automatically terminated when it ceased using the property for educational purposes.
The conveyance created a fee simple determinable (FSD) because it used the durational language "so long as." Upon the occurrence of the stated condition (the cessation of use for educational purposes), the school district's estate automatically terminated, and the title automatically reverted to the grantor or her heirs. The son, as the heir, now holds title in fee simple absolute. The developer received no title from the school district because the district had no title to give once the condition was violated. A right of entry (option C) is associated with a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, not an FSD.
- What is the current status of the startup's title to the property? Select one.
Answer: The startup holds a fee simple subject to the grantor's right of entry, which may have been waived by the grantor's inaction.
The conveyance created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent (FSSCS). The condition—failure to become profitable in five years—was breached. However, forfeiture under an FSSCS is not automatic. The grantor must exercise the right to re-enter. Since the grantor has not done so, the startup still holds title. The startup's title remains a fee simple subject to the grantor's right of entry. However, the grantor's delay of one year in exercising that right after the breach might support a defense of waiver or laches, which could potentially prevent the grantor from now enforcing the forfeiture.
- What interest does the business partner's son now hold in the building? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple subject to the grantor's right of entry.
The original conveyance created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent in the business partner, with the grantor retaining a right of entry. This type of defeasible fee is an estate of inheritance. It is not limited to the life of the grantee. Therefore, the business partner could devise his interest to his son. The son takes the same interest his father had: a fee simple subject to the grantor's right of entry. The right of entry is not extinguished by the grantee's death; it continues to burden the land until the condition occurs and the grantor exercises the right, or the right is otherwise extinguished.
- What is the daughter's strongest defense against the son's lawsuit? Select one.
Answer: The original landowner waived the right to re-enter by failing to exercise it within a reasonable time after the breach.
The conveyance created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. A breach occurred when the daughter began commercial activity. The landowner had a right to re-enter but failed to do so for 18 years (2005 to 2023), despite being aware of the breach. A right of entry can be waived if not exercised within a reasonable time, and a court could find that the landowner's long period of inaction and implicit acquiescence constituted a waiver of the power to terminate the estate. This is the daughter's strongest defense. While whether the stand is "commercial development" (C) is a factual question, the waiver argument (B) is a stronger legal defense given the long delay. The condition is a valid use restriction (A), and RAP does not apply to rights of entry (D).
- What is the daughter's interest in the house? Select one.
Answer: She has no interest, because her right to purchase is an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
The daughter's interest is an executory interest in the form of an option to purchase for a fixed price upon the breach of a condition. This type of interest is considered an unreasonable direct restraint on alienation. Forcing the son to sell for a fixed price of $10,000, which may be far below market value, effectively prevents him from selling the property to anyone else. Because the executory interest is void as a restraint on alienation, it is stricken from the conveyance. Courts are split on whether the condition itself (marriage restriction) is also stricken, but the invalidity of the daughter's interest is the most direct reason she cannot enforce it.
- What advice should you give your client about the title she can convey to the buyer? Select one.
Answer: She can convey a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, which will divest in favor of her brother if she does not graduate law school by age 30.
The client holds a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Her estate is possessory now but is subject to complete divestment if the future condition occurs (her failure to graduate by age 30). The brother holds a shifting executory interest. The client can sell her interest, but she can only convey the title she possesses. Therefore, the buyer will receive a fee simple subject to the same executory limitation. If the client fails to graduate from law school by her 30th birthday, the buyer will lose the property to the client's brother.
