- Upon the son's death, what is the state of the title to the land? Select one.
Answer: The grantor holds the fee simple, subject to the child's springing executory interest.
This question tests your understanding of future interests and what happens when life estates end before contingent remainders vest. When you see language creating interests that depend on future events, carefully track whether those interests have vested or remain contingent.
The conveyance creates a life estate in the son and a contingent remainder in his first child to reach 21. The remainder is contingent because the child must satisfy an age requirement that hasn't been met. When the son dies at 16, the child still hasn't reached 21, so the remainder hasn't vested yet.
Since the jurisdiction abolished the destructibility doctrine, contingent remainders can survive the premature termination of the preceding life estate. Without this statute, the child's interest would have been destroyed when the life estate ended before the remainder vested. Instead, the title returns to the grantor temporarily until the child either reaches 21 (triggering the executory interest) or fails to do so.
Answer D correctly identifies this arrangement: the grantor holds fee simple subject to the child's springing executory interest that will activate if the child reaches 21. Answer A wrongly applies the old destructibility rule that the statute eliminated. Answer B incorrectly suggests the age contingency is automatically waived when the life estate ends prematurely - contingencies aren't waived, they must be satisfied or the interest fails. Answer C creates a fictional trust arrangement that doesn't exist in the conveyance language.
Remember: when statutes abolish destructibility of contingent remainders, the grantor holds a gap-filling interest subject to the contingent remainder becoming a springing executory interest.
- What is the state of the title to the building immediately following the testator's death? Select one.
Answer: The son has a life estate, and the testator's heirs have a reversion.
The correct answer is B. The gift to the grandchildren is void under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP). The condition for vesting is the admission of the will to probate. Since a will could theoretically be probated more than 21 years after the death of any life in being at the time of the testator's death (the son and existing grandchildren), the interest is not certain to vest within the perpetuities period. This is a classic administrative contingency trap. When a future interest is voided by RAP, the invalid interest is struck from the conveyance. This leaves "to my son for life." The remainder of the interest, a reversion, is held by the testator's estate, which passes to his heirs. A and C are incorrect because the interest in the grandchildren is void. D is incorrect because RAP only voids the offending future interest, not the valid preceding estates like the son's life estate.
- What is the nature of the son's interest that would serve as collateral for the loan? Select one.
Answer: An indefeasibly vested remainder, as it is certain to become possessory.
The correct answer is B. The son's interest is an indefeasibly vested remainder. It is vested because the son is an ascertained person and there is no condition precedent to his taking other than the natural termination of the preceding life estate. It is indefeasibly vested because there is no condition subsequent that could divest his interest. His interest (or his heirs' or devisees' interest) is certain to become possessory upon the daughter's death. A is incorrect because there is no language of survivorship attached to the son's interest. C is incorrect because the gift is to a specific, named individual ("my son"), not to a class like "my children." D is incorrect because a vested remainder is a present, alienable property interest, not a mere expectancy like that of a potential heir.
- What interest does the local animal shelter hold in the property? Select one.
Answer: A shifting executory interest.
The correct answer is A. The daughter holds a vested remainder in fee simple, which is subject to a condition subsequent (conviction of a felony). The animal shelter's interest is an executory interest because it does not follow the natural termination of the prior estate (the son's life estate) but instead cuts short or divests the interest of a prior transferee (the daughter). Because it divests a transferee, it is a shifting executory interest. B is incorrect because a remainder cannot follow a fee simple estate and cannot divest a prior estate. C and D are incorrect because those interests can only be retained by a grantor, not granted to a third party.
- What interest does the nephew hold in the property immediately after the conveyance? Select one.
Answer: A springing executory interest in fee simple.
The correct answer is B. The deed conveys a fee simple to the nephew but postpones possession for ten years. The landowner retains the possessory estate, a fee simple, for a ten-year period. The nephew's future interest, which will divest the landowner's possessory estate at the end of the ten years, is a springing executory interest. It is 'springing' because it springs from the grantor at a future date. A is incorrect because a remainder cannot follow a fee simple estate held by the grantor; it must follow a lesser estate like a life estate or a term of years held by another grantee. C is incorrect because the nephew has a future interest in a fee simple, not a present possessory interest. D is not a recognized term for a future interest.
- Which of the following interests created by the will is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities? Select one.
Answer: The remainder to the son's then-living descendants.
The correct answer is C. This scenario presents the classic "unborn widow" problem. The son's widow might be a person who was not alive at the time of the testator's death (e.g., the son's current wife could die, and he could remarry a woman born after the testator died). Since this hypothetical widow is not a life in being for RAP purposes, the gift to the son's descendants, which vests upon her death, could vest more than 21 years after the death of the son (the last relevant life in being). Therefore, the remainder to the descendants is void. A is incorrect because the son's life estate is a present interest. B is incorrect because the widow's life estate will vest, if at all, at the son's death, which is within the perpetuities period. D is incorrect because the remainder to the descendants is void.
- At the time of the testator's death, what interest does the daughter hold in the property? Select one.
Answer: A vested remainder subject to complete defeasance, because her interest is subject to a condition subsequent.
The correct answer is B. The daughter's interest is a vested remainder because she is an ascertained person and her interest is not subject to a condition precedent. The clause "provided that if my daughter does not survive my husband" is a condition subsequent that can terminate her interest. Therefore, she holds a vested remainder subject to complete defeasance (or divestment). A is incorrect because the condition is structured as a divesting condition, not a condition precedent to her taking. C is incorrect because her interest is not indefeasible; it can be lost if she predeceases the husband. D is incorrect because the daughter holds the remainder, while the son holds the shifting executory interest that would divest her.
- What interest is held by the daughter's son? Select one.
Answer: A contingent remainder.
The correct answer is B. Since the Rule in Shelley's Case is abolished, the language is interpreted as written. The daughter receives a life estate. The phrase "heirs of her body" refers to a class of persons who cannot be ascertained until the daughter's death. The living son is an heir apparent, but he is not guaranteed to be an heir (he could predecease his mother). Therefore, the "heirs of her body" hold a contingent remainder. C is incorrect because it describes the outcome if the Rule in Shelley's Case were applied, but the facts state it is abolished. A is incorrect because the interest is contingent, not vested, and most modern jurisdictions have also abolished the fee tail estate, converting it to a fee simple. D is incorrect because the interest follows the natural termination of a life estate.
- Assuming the School Board accepts the grant and uses the land for a school, what interests are held by the School Board, Public Library, and the landowner, respectively?
Answer: A fee simple determinable, a void executory interest, and a possibility of reverter.
The correct answer is B. The conveyance attempts to create a fee simple subject to an executory interest in the School Board, with the executory interest in the Public Library. However, the executory interest in the Public Library violates the Rule Against Perpetuities because the land might cease to be used for school purposes more than 21 years after the death of any relevant life in being. When an executory interest that follows a defeasible fee is voided by RAP, the preceding estate is not upgraded to a fee simple absolute. Instead, the void executory interest is struck, and the preceding fee becomes a fee simple determinable. The landowner is left with the future interest that would correspond to a fee simple determinable, which is a possibility of reverter. Therefore, the School Board has a fee simple determinable, the Library's interest is void, and the landowner has a possibility of reverter. D would be correct if the executory interest were valid (e.g., if it were limited to a specific person's lifetime). A is incorrect because the language doesn't create a right of entry for the grantor. C is incorrect as a fee simple, not a life estate, was granted.
- Immediately after her graduation, what property interest does the granddaughter hold? Select one.
Answer: An indefeasibly vested remainder.
This question tests your understanding of remainders and how conditions can change their classification over time. When analyzing future interests, you need to determine whether any conditions have been satisfied and how that affects the nature of the interest.
Initially, the granddaughter held a contingent remainder because her right to take possession depended on satisfying the condition of graduating from college. However, once she graduated while the life tenant (son) was still alive, this condition was fulfilled. When a contingent remainder's condition is satisfied during the life estate, the remainder becomes vested.
Since the granddaughter has now satisfied the graduation requirement and there are no other conditions or possibilities for her interest to be defeated, she holds an indefeasibly vested remainder - meaning her right to eventually possess the property is certain and cannot be taken away.
Choice (A) is correct because the granddaughter's remainder is now both vested (the condition is satisfied) and indefeasible (cannot be defeated).
Choice (B) is wrong because a contingent remainder exists only when conditions remain unsatisfied - here, graduation already occurred.
Choice (C) is wrong because executory interests cut short prior estates, but this remainder waits naturally for the life estate to end.
Choice (D) is wrong because there are no conditions or events that could defeat the granddaughter's interest now that she has graduated.
Remember: remainders can change classification when conditions are satisfied. Always check whether contingent remainders have become vested based on changed circumstances described in the fact pattern.
- What is the current ownership status of the tract of land? Select one.
Answer: The heir owns the land in fee simple absolute because title reverted automatically.
The correct answer is A. The language "so long as" creates a fee simple determinable, which is an estate that automatically terminates upon the happening of a stated event. The future interest retained by the grantor is a possibility of reverter. When the municipality ceased using a portion of the property as a park, the condition was broken, and the estate automatically terminated and reverted to the grantor's heir. The heir now owns the property in fee simple absolute. B is incorrect because a right of entry is associated with a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, created by language like "provided that" or "on the condition that." C is incorrect because the durational language creates a defeasible fee, not merely a covenant. D is incorrect because any breach of the condition, regardless of its size, is sufficient to trigger the automatic termination of a fee simple determinable.
- Following the execution of the lease, what future interest does the owner retain in the building? Select one.
Answer: A reversion.
The correct answer is C. When an owner of a fee simple absolute conveys a lesser possessory estate, such as a leasehold (a term of years) or a life estate, and does not provide for a third party to take the property upon the termination of that lesser estate, the owner retains a future interest called a reversion. The right of possession will 'revert' to the owner at the end of the 25-year lease term. A is incorrect because a right of entry is a future interest associated with a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, not a leasehold. B is incorrect because a possibility of reverter follows a fee simple determinable. D is incorrect because a remainder is a future interest created in a transferee (a third party), not retained by the grantor.
- What interest is held by the individuals who will be the grantor's heirs? Select one.
Answer: A contingent remainder.
When you encounter property conveyances involving "heirs," you need to determine whether those heirs have a present identifiable interest or if their identity remains uncertain. The key issue here is that a living person has no heirs—only heirs apparent who may or may not actually inherit.
The correct answer is (D) because the grantor's "heirs" cannot be definitively identified while the grantor is alive. Even though the grantor currently has two children who would likely inherit under intestacy laws, the grantor could have more children, adopt others, or the existing children could predecease the grantor. Since the identity of the remainder holders is uncertain and depends on future events (who survives the grantor), this creates a contingent remainder.
Answer (A) is incorrect because the grantor conveyed away any reversionary interest by granting a remainder to his heirs. The grantor retained nothing. Answer (B) is wrong because a vested remainder requires the beneficiaries to be ascertainable and ready to take possession. Here, we cannot definitively identify the heirs of a living person. Answer (C) reflects the old Doctrine of Worthier Title, which would have converted this conveyance into a reversion for the grantor, but the question explicitly states this doctrine has been abolished in this jurisdiction.
Remember: living persons have no heirs, only heirs apparent. This uncertainty typically creates contingent interests. Also note how statutory abolition of common law doctrines can completely change property analysis—always check what rules apply in the given jurisdiction.
- What interest does your client currently hold in the parcel of land? Select one.
Answer: A vested remainder subject to open, because the client is a member of the class of "children."
The correct answer is C. The conveyance creates a life estate in the wife and a remainder in the class of "my children." Since there were two living children at the time of the conveyance, the remainder vested in them immediately. Because the gift is to a class that can increase in size, it is a vested remainder subject to open (also known as subject to partial divestment). When the client was born, the client became a member of the class and took a share of the vested remainder, partially divesting the shares of the older siblings. A is incorrect because a grantee does not need to be alive at the time of conveyance to be part of an open class. B is incorrect as there is no condition of survivorship. D is incorrect because while the client's birth did partially divest the siblings, the interest held by members of the class is a remainder, not an executory interest.
- What is the developer's strongest legal claim regarding the lot? Select one.
Answer: The developer can bring an action to terminate the buyer's estate and retake possession.
The correct answer is C. The deed language "upon the express condition" and "right to re-enter" creates a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. The future interest retained by the developer (the grantor) is a right of entry (also called a power of termination). Unlike a possibility of reverter, a right of entry is not automatic. The grantor must take affirmative steps to terminate the estate upon breach of the condition. Therefore, the developer's remedy is to exercise the right of entry by bringing an action to terminate the estate. A and D are remedies for breach of a covenant, not a condition subsequent, although an injunction might be an alternative remedy a court would grant. B is incorrect because it describes the effect of a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter, which is not what was created here.
- What interest does the City Hospital hold in the parcel? Select one.
Answer: A springing executory interest.
The correct answer is C. The conveyance creates a life estate in the friend. However, the gift to the City Hospital is not a remainder because it is not capable of becoming possessory upon the natural termination of the prior estate. There is a one-year gap between the end of the life estate and when the hospital's interest becomes possessory. During this one-year period, possession reverts to the grantor. The hospital's interest, which will divest the grantor's reversionary interest after that year, is a springing executory interest. A and B are incorrect because a remainder must not have a built-in time gap following the preceding estate. D is incorrect because a shifting executory interest divests another transferee, whereas this interest divests the grantor.
- What future interests did the donor retain in Parcels A and B, respectively? Select one.
Answer: A right of entry in Parcel A and a possibility of reverter in Parcel B.
This question tests your understanding of future interests that arise when grantors impose conditions on property transfers. When you see conditional language in deeds, focus on the specific wording to distinguish between different types of future interests.
The key is recognizing the difference between language that creates automatic forfeiture versus language that gives the grantor a choice. For Parcel A, the phrase "provided, however, that if the land is ever used for commercial purposes, the donor may re-enter and retake the premises" creates a fee simple subject to condition subsequent. The critical word "may" indicates the donor has discretion—they can choose whether to reclaim the property if the condition is violated. This discretionary right is called a right of entry (also known as a power of termination).
For Parcel B, the phrase "for so long as the land is not used for commercial purposes" creates a fee simple determinable. The "for so long as" language means the property automatically reverts to the donor the moment commercial use begins—no choice involved. This automatic reversionary interest is called a possibility of reverter.
Choice A correctly identifies these interests. Choice B reverses them, confusing the conditional language patterns. Choice C incorrectly assumes both deeds create the same interest despite different language. Choice D makes the same error in the opposite direction, missing that only Parcel B has automatic reversion language.
Study tip: Remember the pattern: "provided that" + discretionary language like "may re-enter" = right of entry; "so long as" or "while" = automatic reversion = possibility of reverter.
- What interest in the home did the son most likely receive under the will? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple absolute.
This question tests your ability to distinguish between different types of property interests based on the language used in a will. The key is recognizing when language creates legally enforceable conditions versus mere expressions of hope or desire.
The correct answer is D because the language "with the hope and desire" creates only a precatory expression - a wish or request without legal force. Courts generally will not enforce precatory language as creating binding conditions on property ownership. Since there's no legally enforceable condition limiting the son's ownership, he receives a fee simple absolute, giving him complete ownership and control over the property.
Answer A is wrong because a fee simple subject to condition subsequent requires clear conditional language (like "but if" or "provided that") followed by a right of reentry. The precatory language here doesn't create such a condition. Answer B is incorrect because nothing in the will limits the son's interest to his lifetime - the language focuses on the sister's marital status, not the son's life. Answer C is wrong because a fee simple subject to executory interest would require the property to automatically transfer to someone else upon a specified event, but here there's no indication of an automatic transfer to the sister or anyone else.
Remember that on property law questions, pay close attention to the specific language used. Words like "hope," "desire," or "wish" typically signal precatory language that courts won't enforce as binding conditions, while phrases like "provided that," "but if," or "so long as" usually create enforceable conditions.
- Which of the interests created by this devise is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities? Select one.
Answer: The remainder in fee simple to the sister's grandchildren.
When you encounter a Rule Against Perpetuities question, you need to test each future interest to see if it might vest more than 21 years after the death of a "life in being" at the time the interest was created. The rule invalidates interests that could theoretically vest too remotely, even if they probably won't.
The remainder in fee simple to the sister's grandchildren (D) violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. Here's why: this interest vests when the last of the sister's children dies. Under the common law's conclusive presumption of fertility, the 85-year-old sister could theoretically have another child after the testator's death. If she did, that after-born child wouldn't be a "life in being" when the devise was created. This hypothetical after-born child could live more than 21 years after all the current lives in being have died, making the remainder vest too remotely. Since we can't prove the interest will vest within the perpetuities period, it's void.
Answer A is wrong because life estates to living persons always vest immediately and don't violate the rule. Answer B is incorrect because the secondary life estate in the sister's children will vest, if at all, upon the sister's death—and since the sister is a life in being, this satisfies the rule. Answer C fails because even though the current family members are ascertainable, the fertility presumption creates the possibility of after-born children who aren't lives in being.
Remember: the Rule Against Perpetuities strikes down interests based on what could happen, not what probably will happen. Always consider the fertility presumption when analyzing family gifts.
