- What is the daughter's interest in the cabin at the time the will takes effect? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
The correct answer is C. The language of the devise creates a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. The daughter receives a fee simple, but it is subject to a condition (attempting to sell or mortgage). If the condition occurs, the property automatically passes to a third party, the son, whose future interest is an executory interest. While this condition is a forfeiture restraint on alienation, such restraints are sometimes upheld, particularly when they are limited in duration and apply to a fee simple.
A is incorrect because the grant does not use language limiting the estate to the daughter's life.
B is incorrect. While the condition is a restraint on alienation, it is a forfeiture restraint ("the cabin shall pass to my son"), not a disabling restraint ("any attempt to sell is void"). Courts are more likely to void disabling restraints than forfeiture restraints on a fee simple. Therefore, the condition is likely valid and creates a defeasible fee.
D is incorrect because the future interest is held by a third party (the son), not the grantor's estate, which is the defining feature of a fee simple subject to an executory limitation rather than a condition subsequent.
- Who has superior title to the parcel of land? Select one.
Answer: The heir, because the club's estate automatically terminated when it ceased to be used for recreational hunting.
The correct answer is B. The conveyance "for so long as" created a fee simple determinable in the hunting club, with the landowner retaining a possibility of reverter. When the landowner died, the possibility of reverter passed to his heir. The act of allowing the land to be logged, making it unsuitable for hunting, caused the stated condition to be violated. With a fee simple determinable, the estate terminates automatically upon the breach of the condition, and title immediately and automatically reverts to the holder of the possibility of reverter (the heir).
A is incorrect because this describes the rule for a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, not a fee simple determinable.
C is incorrect because clear-cutting timber is not recreational hunting and, in fact, prevents that use.
D is incorrect because any interest the timber company acquired from the club was subject to the same limitation. Once the club's estate terminated, the timber company's rights, which were carved out of that estate, were also extinguished.
- What estate does the daughter hold in the tract of land? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple absolute.
The correct answer is C. The language "to my daughter and the heirs of her body" creates a common law fee tail. However, the vast majority of jurisdictions have abolished this estate by statute. The most common statutory reform is to convert what would have been a fee tail into a fee simple absolute. Therefore, the daughter holds the land in fee simple absolute and can freely convey it.
A is incorrect because the fee tail has been statutorily abolished in the jurisdiction.
B is another common statutory alternative for handling a fee tail, but the problem specifies the jurisdiction converts it to a fee simple absolute.
D is incorrect because the language does not create a defeasible fee that depends on her having issue; it creates a fee tail, which is handled by the statute.
- Following the son's death, who is entitled to the office building? Select one.
Answer: The daughter, because her remainder interest became possessory.
This question tests your understanding of future interests in real property, specifically life estates and remainders. When you see language like "to A for life, then to B," you're dealing with a life estate followed by a remainder interest.
The deed created a life estate in the son ("to my son for his life") and a remainder interest in the daughter ("upon my son's death, to my daughter"). A life estate gives the holder the right to use and possess the property only during their lifetime. Crucially, a life tenant cannot transfer more rights than they possess—they cannot convey fee simple ownership because they don't own it. When the son died, his life estate automatically terminated, and the daughter's remainder interest immediately became a present possessory interest. The daughter now owns the building in fee simple.
Answer A is wrong because the son only held a life estate, which terminates at death and cannot be devised by will. A life tenant cannot give away property they no longer have any interest in after death. Answer B is incorrect because the issue isn't whether the will was valid—the son simply had no devisable interest in the property at his death. Answer C misidentifies the future interest; this property doesn't revert to the parent because the deed created a remainder in the daughter, not a reversion in the grantor.
Remember: Life estates end at death and cannot be extended through wills. Always identify whether a future interest is a remainder (goes to a third party) or reversion (returns to the grantor) to determine who takes possession.
- Based on the deed language and the jurisdiction's rule of construction, what estate does your client most likely hold? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, due to the "right to re-enter" language.
The correct answer is B. The deed contains language characteristic of both a fee simple determinable ("should the land cease to be used") and a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent ("right to re-enter"). When the language is ambiguous, courts express a preference for the construction that avoids automatic forfeiture. The FSSCS requires the grantor to take an affirmative step to terminate the estate, making it less likely to be forfeited. The explicit reservation of a "right to re-enter" is strong evidence of an FSSCS, and this aligns with the jurisdiction's stated preference.
A is incorrect because, despite some durational phrasing, the explicit right of entry and the judicial preference weigh heavily in favor of an FSSCS.
C is incorrect because the language is more than just a statement of motive (precatory); it clearly attaches a condition to the ownership of the land.
D is incorrect as the deed conveys a possessory estate in the land, not merely a right to use it for a specific purpose like an easement.
- What estate does the nephew hold in the property? Select one.
Answer: A determinable life estate, which terminated when he ceased to personally occupy it.
When you encounter property law questions involving conditional language, pay close attention to the specific terms used in the conveyance. The phrase "for his personal use and occupancy during his lifetime" creates both a duration limitation (lifetime) and a use restriction (personal use and occupancy).
This language creates a determinable life estate. Unlike a standard life estate that lasts for the nephew's entire lifetime regardless of his actions, a determinable life estate automatically terminates when the specified condition is violated. Here, the condition requires the nephew's personal use and occupancy. When he leased the property to a tenant and moved to another country, he ceased personally using and occupying the land, causing his estate to terminate automatically.
Answer A is incorrect because a standard life estate would only end upon the nephew's death, regardless of whether he personally occupied the property. The restrictive language here creates something more limited than a standard life estate.
Answer B mischaracterizes the nephew's interest. A license is merely permission to use land and doesn't create a property interest, whereas the nephew received an actual estate in land through the warranty deed.
Answer C is wrong because use restrictions in life estates are generally enforceable when clearly stated, as they are here. The nephew doesn't hold fee simple absolute since his interest is limited both by duration (his lifetime) and by the use restriction.
Remember: When you see qualifying language like "for [specific purpose]" in property conveyances, consider whether it creates a determinable estate that ends automatically when the condition is breached.
- What is the likely outcome of the lawsuit filed by the grantor's heirs? Select one.
Answer: The heirs will lose, because the language in the deed created a fee simple absolute in the church.
The correct answer is C. The lawsuit will likely fail because the language "for the purpose of" is generally interpreted by courts as a statement of the grantor's motive or as creating a covenant, not a defeasible fee. Without clear durational language (e.g., "so long as") or conditional language (e.g., "on condition that"), the deed is construed to grant a fee simple absolute. The church was therefore free to sell the property.
A and B are incorrect because the necessary language to create a defeasible fee is missing.
D is incorrect because the main reason the heirs will lose is that no future interest was created in the first place, not because a validly created future interest was an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
- What was the estate created in the son by the will? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
The correct answer is C. The son's estate is a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. It is a fee simple because it has the potential to last forever (if he never marries). It is subject to a limitation because upon the happening of a specified event (his marriage), the estate automatically shifts to a third party (the daughter). The daughter's interest is an executory interest.
A is incorrect. While a general restraint on marriage is against public policy, a partial restraint, such as one that terminates an interest upon marriage, is often upheld, particularly when its purpose is seen as providing support until the person marries. It is not an absolute prohibition. Therefore, the condition is likely valid.
B is incorrect because the grant is not limited to the son's life; it's a fee simple that is defeasible.
D is incorrect because the interest shifts automatically to a third party, not back to the grantor's estate via a right of entry.
- What estate does the historical society hold in the building? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple absolute.
The correct answer is A. The language in the deed expresses the grantor's motive or desire for how the property should be used ("sincere hope and expectation"). This is considered precatory language and does not create a legally enforceable condition or limitation on the estate. Without clear durational or conditional language (like "so long as" or "on the condition that"), the grant is construed as conveying the largest possible estate, which is a fee simple absolute.
B and C are incorrect because the deed lacks the specific language of duration or condition required to create a defeasible fee.
D is incorrect because there is no language limiting the estate to the life of any person or the existence of the society in a way that would create a life estate.
- At the moment the will became effective, what estate did the son receive in Blackacre? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
The correct answer is C. This conveyance creates a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. When a defeasible fee is created such that, upon the happening of a stated event, the estate automatically passes to a third party (not the grantor), the third party holds an executory interest, and the present estate is a fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
A is incorrect because a fee simple determinable involves an automatic reversion of the estate to the grantor, not a transfer to a third party.
B is incorrect because a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent gives the grantor a right of entry, which is not automatic. Here, the interest passes to a third party, the daughter, making her interest an executory interest.
D is incorrect because a condition restricting the sale of alcohol on a specific property is a valid use restriction and not considered an illegal restraint of trade.
- What is the likely result of the developer's lawsuit for forfeiture? Select one.
Answer: The developer will fail, because the deed provision created a restrictive covenant, not a defeasible fee.
This question tests your ability to distinguish between different types of property interests and restrictions. When you see language in a deed that restricts land use, you need to carefully analyze the specific wording to determine what type of legal interest was created.
The correct answer is A because the deed provision creates a restrictive covenant, not a defeasible fee estate. The key indicators are: (1) the language uses "covenant and agree," which is classic covenant terminology, and (2) the provision specifies a monetary remedy ($50,000 in liquidated damages) rather than automatic forfeiture. Restrictive covenants are promises about land use that don't affect the title itself - they're contractual obligations that can be enforced through damages or injunctions, but breach doesn't cause the grantee to lose ownership.
Answer B is wrong because a fee simple determinable requires specific "durational" language like "so long as," "while," or "until." The deed here doesn't contain such language. Answer C is incorrect because a condition subsequent would need language like "provided that" or "on condition that," followed by a right of entry clause. While there's a use restriction, there's no language creating a condition that would terminate the estate. Answer D is wrong because the liquidated damages clause isn't necessarily unenforceable - the issue is that the developer is seeking forfeiture, not damages.
Remember: Focus on the exact wording in property restrictions. "Covenant" language creates contractual obligations, while durational or conditional language creates defeasible fees. The remedy specified often reveals the drafter's intent about what type of restriction was created.
- What is the Town's current interest in the one-acre portion where the library was built? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple subject to the heir's power of termination.
The correct answer is C. The language "on condition that" coupled with a "right to re-enter" creates a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent (FSSCS). Upon breach of the condition, the estate does not automatically terminate. The holder of the right of entry (the heir) must take affirmative action to end the estate, such as by making a formal entry or bringing a lawsuit. Until the heir acts, the Town continues to hold the estate, which remains subject to the condition. Mere inaction does not extinguish the right of entry, although it may be subject to a statute of limitations or laches.
A is incorrect because waiver of a right of entry is not typically presumed from mere passage of time or inaction.
B is incorrect because termination is not automatic for an FSSCS, unlike a fee simple determinable.
D is incorrect because building a library is not consistent with maintaining the land as an athletic field, thus the condition was breached.
- What was the estate held by the corporation? Select one.
Answer: A determinable tenancy for years.
When you encounter property law questions involving time limitations and conditions, you need to distinguish between different types of estates and whether they create ownership (fee estates) or temporary rights (leaseholds/tenancies).
The key here is recognizing that this conveyance creates a leasehold interest, not ownership. The language "for a term of 99 years" establishes a tenancy for years (a type of leasehold), while the phrase "or for so long as the Corporation maintains its headquarters on the site, whichever period is shorter" makes that tenancy determinable—meaning it can end automatically before the 99-year term expires if the condition fails.
Answer A is correct because this creates a determinable tenancy for years—a leasehold estate that has a maximum duration (99 years) but will terminate automatically if the specified condition (maintaining headquarters on-site) ceases to exist.
Answer B is wrong because while this is a leasehold estate, it's not simply "for a term of years" since it includes the determinable condition that can cut the term short. Answer C is incorrect because fee simple determinable refers to ownership interest that lasts potentially forever until a condition fails—but this conveyance clearly creates a temporary 99-year interest, not ownership. Answer D is wrong because fee simple subject to condition subsequent also refers to ownership interest, and this involves automatic termination (determinable) rather than the right to terminate (condition subsequent).
Remember: Look for durational language ("for a term of") to identify leaseholds versus ownership, and watch for conditions that can automatically terminate the interest.
- What is the wife's interest in the commercial property? Select one.
Answer: A life estate, but her power of disposition includes the power to make an inter vivos gift of the property.
The correct answer is B. The wife has a life estate coupled with a power of disposition. The language explicitly grants her the estate "for life" but adds a power to dispose of it. Courts interpret the scope of such a power based on the specific language used. "Full power to sell or dispose of the property as she sees fit" is broad language that is generally construed to include the power to make an inter vivos gift, not just to sell for consideration. The gift to the children is a remainder that applies only to whatever property is left when the wife dies.
A is incorrect. Even with a broad power of disposition, the explicit "for life" language prevents the estate from being a fee simple absolute. The existence of the remainder interest in the children confirms this.
C is incorrect because the language "as she sees fit" is much broader than language limiting the power to what is necessary for her support. Courts require specific limiting language to construe the power that narrowly.
D is incorrect because while the arrangement has some trust-like features, the language of the will creates legal estates (a life estate and a remainder), not an equitable trust.
- Who is entitled to possession of the warehouse following the business partner's death? Select one.
Answer: The business partner's wife.
The correct answer is B. The conveyance created a life estate *pur autre vie*—a life estate measured by the life of a third person (the eldest son). This type of estate does not terminate upon the death of the life tenant (the business partner). Instead, it is an asset that can be devised by will or pass through intestacy until the measuring life (the eldest son) ends. Because the business partner devised all his property to his wife, she now holds the life estate pur autre vie for the remainder of the son's life.
A is incorrect because the original owner's reversionary interest does not become possessory until the measuring life (the son) ends.
C is incorrect because the son is merely the measuring life; he has no possessory rights in the property.
D is incorrect because the business partner had a valid will devising the property to his wife, so the rules of intestacy do not apply.
- What is the maximum interest the buyer could have acquired from the caregiver? Select one.
Answer: A life estate measured by the caregiver's life.
The correct answer is B. The caregiver holds a life estate, which is an estate measured by his own life. A life tenant can convey their interest, but they cannot convey more than they own. Therefore, the buyer receives an estate that will last for the duration of the caregiver's life. This is known as a life estate pur autre vie (for the life of another).
A is incorrect because a grantor cannot convey an estate greater than the one they possess, regardless of the type of deed used. The warranties in the deed may give the buyer a cause of action against the caregiver, but they do not enlarge the estate conveyed.
C is incorrect because a life estate is freely alienable (transferable) during the life tenant's lifetime.
D is incorrect because the language of the grant created a simple life estate, not a defeasible fee, and the caregiver's actions do not convert the estate into a different type of interest.
- Who holds the right of entry over the university's parcel? Select one.
Answer: The museum, because the right of entry was devisable.
The correct answer is A. The deed created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, with the owner retaining a right of entry (also called a power of termination). At common law, this interest was not alienable inter vivos but was descendible to the grantor's heirs. The modern trend, followed in most jurisdictions, is that rights of entry are devisable by will and may also be alienable inter vivos. Therefore, the owner could, and did, devise the right of entry to the museum in his will.
B is incorrect because it reflects the old common law rule that is no longer followed in most states. Under the modern view, a right of entry is devisable.
C is incorrect because cy pres is a doctrine for reforming charitable trusts, which is not applicable here.
D is incorrect because a right of entry is not a personal right that expires on death; it is a property interest that can be inherited or devised.
- What present possessory estate does the school district currently hold in the parcel of land? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple determinable, which terminated automatically when the district ceased using the property for educational purposes.
The correct answer is B. The language "so long as" creates a fee simple determinable. This estate is limited by a specific duration, and if the stated event occurs (in this case, the cessation of use for educational purposes), the estate automatically terminates and reverts to the grantor or their heirs. The landowner's heir now holds the property in fee simple absolute.
A is incorrect because a restriction on the use of land in a defeasible fee is not considered an invalid restraint on alienation.
C is incorrect because language of duration like "so long as" creates a fee simple determinable, not a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. The latter is created by conditional language such as "on the condition that" or "provided that," and termination is not automatic.
D is incorrect because the estate's duration is tied to a condition, not the life of a person, which is the hallmark of a life estate.
- What is the most accurate description of the Foundation's estate in the beachfront property? Select one.
Answer: A fee simple subject to an executory limitation, with an executory interest held by the nephew's child.
The correct answer is D. The bequest created a fee simple in the Foundation that is subject to a condition. Upon breach of that condition, a future interest is created in a third party (the nephew or his heirs). This structure creates a fee simple subject to an executory limitation in the Foundation and an executory interest in the nephew and his heirs. The language "power to terminate" sounds like a right of entry, but because the interest is held by a third party rather than the grantor's estate, it is properly classified as an executory interest.
A is incorrect. While an executory interest may violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, one created in a specific person (the nephew) and his heirs is often valid. Furthermore, many jurisdictions have a statutory exception to RAP for interests following a grant to a charity.
B is incorrect because a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent creates a right of entry (power of termination) in the grantor or the grantor's heirs, not in a third party.
C is incorrect because the language is conditional ("on the condition that"), not durational ("so long as"), and the future interest is in a third party, not the testator's estate.
- What is the son's interest in the family home? Select one.
Answer: A contingent remainder, because his interest is subject to a condition precedent.
When analyzing future interests in property, you need to distinguish between different types based on whether conditions must be met and how the interest becomes possessory.
The son has a contingent remainder because his interest is subject to a condition precedent - he must reach age 25 before his mother's death to inherit the property. A remainder is contingent when it's given to an ascertained person but is subject to a condition precedent, or when it's given to unascertained persons. Here, while the son is known, his right to inherit depends entirely on satisfying the age requirement before the life estate terminates.
Answer A is incorrect because a vested remainder requires no conditions - the interest would automatically become possessory upon the life tenant's death. The age requirement prevents this from being vested.
Answer B misapplies the Rule Against Perpetuities. Since the son is a life in being at the testator's death, we'll know within his lifetime (certainly within 21 years after his death) whether the condition is satisfied. The interest will either vest or fail well within the perpetuities period.
Answer C confuses executory interests with remainders. An executory interest cuts short or divests a prior estate, while a remainder takes effect upon the natural termination of the preceding estate. The son's interest doesn't cut short the mother's life estate - it only becomes possessory when her life estate naturally ends.
Remember: contingent remainders have strings attached, while vested remainders are guaranteed to become possessory upon the prior estate's natural termination.
