Rule Against Perpetuities Practice Problems

Navigating the Perplexities of the Rule Against Perpetuities: Practice Problems and Solutions

The Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP), a common law doctrine designed to prevent property from being tied up indefinitely in the future, presents a notoriously complex challenge for students of property law. Its intricacies lie not just in its wording but in its application to real-world scenarios. This article provides a comprehensive exploration of the RAP, delving into its core principles, common pitfalls, and practical application through a series of progressively challenging practice problems and detailed solutions. Understanding the RAP is crucial for anyone involved in estate planning, real estate transactions, or any area touching upon the future ownership of property.

Understanding the Rule Against Perpetuities: A Refresher

The Rule Against Perpetuities, in its simplest form, states that no interest in property is valid unless it must vest or fail within 21 years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest. This seemingly straightforward definition masks a complex web of legal interpretations. Let's break down the key components:

• Vest: This refers to the point at which an interest in property becomes certain and unchangeable. For example, a contingent remainder vests when the condition precedent is satisfied, and a vested remainder vests immediately.

• 21 Years: This adds a buffer period after the death of the measuring life. The rationale is to account for potential gestation and minority.

• Life in Being: This refers to a person alive at the time the interest was created. The measuring life is crucial in determining the validity of the interest. The death of the measuring life triggers the 21-year clock.

• Common Pitfalls: Many problems arise from identifying the "measuring life" and determining whether vesting is certain within the prescribed period. The rule is often applied retrospectively, meaning we evaluate its validity from the moment the interest was created, not from the perspective of the future. This often leads to counterintuitive results.

Practice Problems: Testing Your Understanding

Let's tackle a series of increasingly complex problems, illustrating the various aspects of the RAP.

Problem 1: The Simple Trust

"O conveys Blackacre ‘to A for life, then to A’s children who reach the age of 25.’" Does this conveyance violate the RAP?

Problem 2: The Vague Contingency

"O conveys Blackacre ‘to A for life, then to A’s grandchildren who graduate from law school.’" Does this conveyance violate the RAP?

Problem 3: The Class Gift Problem

"O conveys Blackacre ‘to A for life, then to A’s children.’" Does this conveyance violate the RAP?

Problem 4: The Wait-and-See Approach

"O conveys Blackacre ‘to A for life, then to the first child of A to marry after A’s death.’" Ignoring the common law RAP, would this conveyance be valid under a wait-and-see approach?

Problem 5: The Unborn Widow Problem

“O conveys Blackacre ‘to A for life, then to A’s widow, then to A’s children.’” Does this conveyance violate the RAP?

Problem 6: The Trust with a Power of Appointment

"O creates a trust for the benefit of A for life, with a power of appointment to A’s children. A has one child living when she dies. If A's daughter exercises the power to leave the money to A's grandchildren, does the conveyance violate the RAP?"

Problem 7: The Charitable Trust

“O leaves $1 million in trust, to be paid to the 'University of California, Berkeley' after 100 years” Does this conveyance violate the RAP?

Problem 8: The Perpetuities Reform

"O conveys Blackacre 'to A for life, then to A's descendants who reach the age of 30, with a wait-and-see period of 90 years". Considering modern reforms to RAP, is this valid?

Solutions and Detailed Explanations

Solution 1: The Simple Trust

This conveyance violates the RAP. The measuring life is A. A’s children might not reach 25 until more than 21 years after A’s death. For example, A could have a child born shortly before her death. That child would not reach 25 until well after the 21-year period.

Solution 2: The Vague Contingency

This conveyance violates the RAP. The condition of graduating from law school is too uncertain to determine within the required time frame. There’s no way to determine when (or if) all of A’s grandchildren would graduate from law school within the relevant period.

Solution 3: The Class Gift Problem

This conveyance violates the RAP under the common law rule. The class of A’s children is open until A’s death, and A could have a child born after the creation of the interest who would live for more than 21 years after the death of a life in being. This is known as the "fertile octogenarian" problem. However, many jurisdictions have adopted the "Rule of Convenience" where the class closes when A’s death triggers the remainder interest and a member of that closed class must vest their interest within 21 years of the death of A.

Solution 4: The Wait-and-See Approach

Under a wait-and-see approach, the validity of the conveyance would be determined based on what actually happened after A’s death. If the first child of A to marry after A’s death did so within 21 years of A’s death, then the conveyance would be valid. Many jurisdictions have adopted some form of wait-and-see approach to mitigate the harshness of the traditional RAP.

Solution 5: The Unborn Widow Problem

This conveyance violates the RAP. The problem lies in the possibility of A having a child born after the conveyance but before A's death who would be waiting to inherit (through their potential inheritance) after the death of the widow, leading the interest to not vest within the given period. The measuring life is not clear here; it's the interaction of A, A's widow, and A's children that creates the perpetuity problem.

Solution 6: The Trust with a Power of Appointment

This conveyance potentially violates the RAP. The RAP applies to the exercise of the power of appointment. If A's daughter appoints the property to her grandchildren, the vesting of the grandchildren's interest could be too distant in time. The measuring life would be the daughter and it needs to be verified that all grandchildren vest within 21 years of her death.

Solution 7: The Charitable Trust

This conveyance likely does not violate the RAP. Most jurisdictions have exceptions for charitable trusts, exempting them from the RAP's restrictions. The rationale is that charities have a perpetual existence, and tying up property for their benefit is generally seen as socially beneficial.

Solution 8: The Perpetuities Reform

Modern reforms to the RAP commonly include wait-and-see provisions and, in some jurisdictions, outright abolishment. While the stated conveyance might still be considered invalid under a strict common law RAP interpretation, many modern statutes would likely validate it. The "wait-and-see" element incorporated into the conveyance is precisely the sort of measure introduced to address the criticisms of the common law approach. The exact outcome would depend on the specific legislation of the jurisdiction in question.

Conclusion: Mastering the RAP

The Rule Against Perpetuities, while complex, is a cornerstone of property law. Understanding its nuances and applying it to real-world scenarios require careful attention to detail and a thorough grasp of its core principles. The practice problems presented here, alongside their detailed solutions, serve as a stepping stone to mastering this challenging yet crucial area of legal study. Remember that jurisdictions vary in their approach to the RAP, and some have even abolished it entirely. Staying up-to-date on legislative changes is paramount for accurate application. By carefully analyzing the intricacies of each problem, and understanding the reasoning behind the solutions, one can develop the skills necessary to navigate the complexities of the RAP with confidence. Further independent research and consultation with legal professionals are strongly recommended for in-depth understanding and practical application in specific cases.