Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Defeasible Estates

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Defeasible EstatesQuestion 1 of 20

An alumnus of a private college donated a piece of real estate to the college. The deed conveyed the property "to College, its successors and assigns, so long as the property is used for student housing; if it is not so used, then to the Red Cross." The college used the property as a dormitory for 200 years. It now plans to demolish the dormitory and build a new science center on the site.

What is the legal status of the Red Cross's interest in the property? Select one.

It is a valid executory interest that will give the Red Cross title if the college builds the science center.

It became a vested remainder after the college used the property as a dormitory for over 100 years.

It is a contingent remainder that was destroyed when the college's estate vested.

It is an interest that was void from the beginning under the Rule Against Perpetuities.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Defeasible Estates

Practice Defeasible Estates in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Defeasible Estates, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

What is the legal status of the Red Cross's interest in the property? Select one.

It is a valid executory interest that will give the Red Cross title if the college builds the science center.
It became a vested remainder after the college used the property as a dormitory for over 100 years.
It is a contingent remainder that was destroyed when the college's estate vested.
It is an interest that was void from the beginning under the Rule Against Perpetuities. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 2

A corporation conveyed a tract of undeveloped land to a municipality by a deed stating the land was to be held "so long as it is maintained as a nature preserve open to the public, and if it ceases to be so maintained, it shall revert to the grantor." Thirty years later, the corporation was acquired by another company and then legally dissolved. The municipality now wishes to build a road through part of the preserve.

If the municipality builds the road, what will be the status of the title to the land? Select one.

The municipality will hold a fee simple absolute because the holder of the future interest no longer exists.
The municipality's estate will automatically terminate, but title will remain with the municipality as there is no one to take it.
Title will revert to the state under the doctrine of escheat.
Title will revert to the shareholders of the dissolved corporation. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 3

In 1990, a landowner conveyed a farm "to my daughter, provided, however, that if the land is ever used for commercial development, then the grantor reserves a right to re-enter and take possession." In 2005, the daughter built a small roadside stand on the property to sell produce, which she operated every summer. The landowner, who lived next door, was aware of the stand but never objected. The landowner died in 2023. The landowner's son, as his sole heir, immediately filed suit to eject the daughter and claim the farm.

What is the daughter's strongest defense against the son's lawsuit? Select one.

The condition was void because it was an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
The original landowner waived the right to re-enter by failing to exercise it within a reasonable time after the breach. (correct answer)
Operating a small produce stand does not constitute "commercial development" under the terms of the deed.
The son's right of entry is a future interest that was destroyed by the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Explanation: 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).

Question 4

Your client is the sole heir of a woman who, 25 years ago, conveyed a large tract of land to a non-profit organization. The deed stated the conveyance was made "for the express purpose of creating a wildlife sanctuary, and on the condition that it always be maintained as such." For 20 years, the organization operated a sanctuary. Five years ago, due to funding cuts, the organization ceased all maintenance and closed the sanctuary to the public. Your client recently learned of this and wants to know his rights.

What is the best advice to give your client regarding the legal effect of the deed's language? Select one.

The language created a fee simple determinable, and title automatically reverted to him five years ago.
The language likely created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, giving him the option to terminate the organization's estate. (correct answer)
The language is merely a statement of the grantor's motive (a covenant), so the organization owns the land and he can only sue for damages.
The language created an unenforceable future interest because it violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Explanation: 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).

Question 5

What is the daughter's strongest defense against the son's lawsuit? Select one.

The condition was void because it was an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
The original landowner waived the right to re-enter by failing to exercise it within a reasonable time after the breach. (correct answer)
Operating a small produce stand does not constitute "commercial development" under the terms of the deed.
The son's right of entry is a future interest that was destroyed by the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Question 6

What is the legal status of the Red Cross's interest in the property? Select one.

It is a valid executory interest that will give the Red Cross title if the college builds the science center.
It became a vested remainder after the college used the property as a dormitory for over 100 years.
It is a contingent remainder that was destroyed when the college's estate vested.
It is an interest that was void from the beginning under the Rule Against Perpetuities. (correct answer)

Question 7

What is the best advice to give your client regarding the legal effect of the deed's language? Select one.

The language created a fee simple determinable, and title automatically reverted to him five years ago.
The language likely created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, giving him the option to terminate the organization's estate. (correct answer)
The language is merely a statement of the grantor's motive (a covenant), so the organization owns the land and he can only sue for damages.
The language created an unenforceable future interest because it violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Question 8

Your client owns a parcel of land that was conveyed to her by her aunt. The deed states the land is conveyed "to my niece, on the condition that she graduates from law school, but if she does not graduate from law school by her 30th birthday, then to her brother." Your client is 28 years old, is not in law school, and wants to sell the property to pay for medical school instead. She has a ready buyer.

What advice should you give your client about the title she can convey to the buyer? Select one.

She can convey a fee simple absolute because the condition is a personal obligation, not a limitation on title.
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. (correct answer)
She cannot convey any title because her interest is not vested until she graduates from law school.
She can convey a fee simple determinable, with a possibility of reverter in her aunt's heirs.

Explanation: 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.

Question 9

A landowner validly conveyed a parcel of real property "to the local school district, its successors and assigns, so long as the property is used for educational purposes." For 30 years, the school district operated an elementary school on the property. The school district then closed the school and sold the parcel to a commercial developer who immediately began constructing a shopping mall. The original landowner has since died, and her son is her sole heir.

Who holds rightful title to the parcel of land? Select one.

The son, because the school district's estate automatically terminated when it ceased using the property for educational purposes. (correct answer)
The developer, because the school district held a fee simple absolute that was freely alienable.
The son, but only if he successfully brings an action to re-enter and retake the property.
The developer, because the condition was a restraint on alienation that became void after 30 years of compliance.

Explanation: 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.

Question 10

In 1985, a church conveyed a parcel of land adjacent to its building "to the Town, its successors and assigns, for so long as the land is used exclusively as a playground for children." The Town maintained a playground on the site until 2010, when it removed the playground equipment and paved the area for use as a public parking lot. The church took no action. It is now the present day, and the jurisdiction's statute of limitations for recovery of real property is 10 years.

The church now brings an action to recover possession of the land. What is the likely outcome? Select one.

The church will win, because title automatically reverted to it in 2010.
The church will lose, because it waived its right to the property by not acting sooner.
The Town will win, because it has acquired title by adverse possession. (correct answer)
The Town will win, because using the land for public parking is consistent with the grant's purpose.

Explanation: 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.

Question 11

A testator's will devised a small office building as follows: "To my son for his life, and upon my son's death, to the City Library, but if the City Library ever ceases to use the building for public library purposes, then to the County Museum." The testator died, and his son took possession. The son died five years later, and the City Library took possession. Ten years after that, the City Library moved to a new building and sold the old office building to a private investor.

Who has the superior claim to title of the office building? Select one.

The County Museum, because its executory interest automatically vested when the Library ceased using the building for its intended purpose. (correct answer)
The testator's heirs, because the gift to the County Museum violated the Rule Against Perpetuities.
The private investor, because the Library acquired a fee simple absolute upon the son's death.
The City Library, because it retains a right to cure the breach of the condition before forfeiture.

Explanation: 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.

Question 12

A mother conveyed a house "to my son, provided that he never marries outside of our family's religion. If he does so, my daughter shall have the right to purchase the house from him for $10,000." The son subsequently married a person not of the family's religion. The daughter immediately tendered $10,000 to the son and demanded the deed.

What is the daughter's interest in the house? Select one.

She has an option to purchase, which is a valid executory interest that she can now exercise.
She has no interest, because the condition regarding marriage is void as against public policy.
She has a right of entry that allows her to sue for possession of the house.
She has no interest, because her right to purchase is an unreasonable restraint on alienation. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 13

A farmer granted a parcel of his land "to the local Grange Hall association, its successors and assigns; this land to be used for agricultural fairs. If the land ceases to be used for agricultural fairs, the grantor or his successors shall have the right to re-enter." Thirty years later, the Grange Hall association dissolved. The land has sat vacant for a year. The farmer's grandchild and sole heir wants to claim the property.

Which of the following must the grandchild do to obtain title to the land? Select one.

Nothing, because title automatically reverted upon the dissolution of the association.
Initiate adverse possession proceedings, as the land is now considered abandoned.
Purchase the land from the state, which takes title to the property of a dissolved non-profit.
File a lawsuit to quiet title or perform some other act of re-entry to terminate the association's former estate. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 14

If the municipality builds the road, what will be the status of the title to the land? Select one.

The municipality will hold a fee simple absolute because the holder of the future interest no longer exists.
The municipality's estate will automatically terminate, but title will remain with the municipality as there is no one to take it.
Title will revert to the state under the doctrine of escheat.
Title will revert to the shareholders of the dissolved corporation. (correct answer)

Question 15

Which of the following must the grandchild do to obtain title to the land? Select one.

Nothing, because title automatically reverted upon the dissolution of the association.
Initiate adverse possession proceedings, as the land is now considered abandoned.
Purchase the land from the state, which takes title to the property of a dissolved non-profit.
File a lawsuit to quiet title or perform some other act of re-entry to terminate the association's former estate. (correct answer)

Question 16

A father conveyed a parcel of land "to my daughter and her heirs, on the condition that the property never be transferred to any person who is not a direct descendant of my grandfather. In the event of such a transfer, the grantor or his heirs may re-enter and terminate the estate." The daughter now has a contract to sell the property to an unrelated third party.

If the daughter completes the sale, what interest will the third-party buyer acquire? Select one.

No interest, because the daughter's estate will automatically terminate upon the prohibited transfer.
A fee simple absolute, because the condition constitutes an invalid restraint on alienation. (correct answer)
A fee simple subject to the father's right of entry, which he may exercise because of the sale.
A tenancy in common with the father's other heirs, who will partially inherit the property.

Explanation: 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.

Question 17

A farmer sold 10 acres of his land to his neighbor. The deed of conveyance included the following language: "This conveyance is made upon the express condition that no structure taller than 30 feet ever be erected on the property." The deed did not specify a remedy or future interest in the event of a breach. Years later, the neighbor built a 40-foot-tall barn on the property. The farmer has filed suit to reclaim the land.

What is the most likely interpretation of the language in the deed? Select one.

It created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, giving the farmer a right of entry.
It created a fee simple determinable, causing title to automatically revert to the farmer.
It created a restrictive covenant, entitling the farmer to an injunction or damages, but not forfeiture. (correct answer)
It is void as an unreasonable restriction on the use of property.

Explanation: 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.

Question 18

A landowner conveyed a plot of land "to the town of Springfield, for use as a public park and for no other purpose." Twenty years later, the town, facing budget shortfalls, sold a small corner of the plot to a fast-food company to build a restaurant. The landowner's heir sued to have the entire plot returned to her.

Assuming a court interprets the conveyance as creating a defeasible fee, which statement is most accurate? Select one.

The heir has no claim because the language created a mere covenant, not a defeasible fee.
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. (correct answer)
The court must find that the language created a fee simple determinable, causing title to automatically revert to the heir.
The heir's claim fails because the town's substantial compliance with the condition for 20 years was sufficient to vest title in fee simple absolute.

Explanation: 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.

Question 19

If the daughter completes the sale, what interest will the third-party buyer acquire? Select one.

No interest, because the daughter's estate will automatically terminate upon the prohibited transfer.
A fee simple absolute, because the condition constitutes an invalid restraint on alienation. (correct answer)
A fee simple subject to the father's right of entry, which he may exercise because of the sale.
A tenancy in common with the father's other heirs, who will partially inherit the property.

Question 20

A woman's will devised her home "to my brother, but if he should ever divorce his current wife, then the home shall go to my sister." The woman died, and her brother and his wife moved into the home. Worried about the provision, the brother seeks to sell the home and move elsewhere.

What type of interest in the home does the brother hold? Select one.

A fee simple absolute, because the condition is void as against public policy. (correct answer)
A fee simple subject to an executory limitation.
A life estate, because his ownership is not absolute.
A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent.

Explanation: 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.