Fee Simple
O conveys “to B and his heirs forever.”
B has a fee simple absolute. “[A]nd his heirs” are words of limitation, which establish the estate as a fee simple. The word “forever” is superfluous.
O conveys “to B until he dies.”
The words of limitation “until he dies” denote that B receives a life estate. Although the phrase “for life” is not used, O’s intent is clear. O retains a reversion.
O conveys “to B and his heirs so long as the land is not used as a nightclub.”
B has a fee simple determinable, while O retains a possibility of reverter. The words of limitation “so long as” create a fee simple determinable in B. By definition, O’s interest must be a possibility of reverter.
O to A and his heirs, but if A should marry, to C and his heirs
O has nothing
A has FSSEL
C has EI in fee simple
O conveys “to B for life, then to M if M lives to be age 50.”
B has a life estate; M has a contingent remainder in fee simple; and O retains a reversion.
The rule states that M's contingent remainder cannot vest more than 21 years after the death of the last life in being. If O, B, and M die in a common disaster, M's interest will only vest if she is alive at age 50. There are two logical possibilities: (1) M will live to age 50, resulting in her interest vesting, or (2) M will not live to age 50, resulting in her interest failing to vest forever. At M's death, one of these two events will occur, indicating that M's interest is good. However, the rule does not apply to O's reversion.
O devises “to C for life.”
C has a life estate, because the devise uses the words of limitation “for life.” Because O devises an estate of lesser amount, a future interest is created. A will is legally operative only at the death of the testator; therefore, O’s heirs obtain the future interest, not O. We would classify the future interest in O’s heirs as a vested remainder, although some authorities would view it as a reversion.
O devises “to C for life, then to X.”
The words of limitation “for life” indicate that C receives a life estate. X has an indefeasibly vested remainder in fee simple.
O devises “to C and her heirs, but if Boston becomes a state then O’s heirs have the right to re-enter and retake the estate.”
C has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, while O’s heirs have an executory interest. Because the defeasible fee is followed by a future interest in a third party (O’s heirs) rather than in the transferor O, C has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Remember that because this is a devise, O cannot retain any interest; O is dead when the will becomes legally operative. The future interest in O’s heirs follows a defeasible fee in a transferee and therefore is an executory interest. If Boston becomes a state, O’s heirs gain possession in fee simple absolute.
O ta A and his heirs upon A's marriage
O has FSSEL
A has EI in fee simple
O devises “to City, but if the land is not used as a school, then to H and her heirs.”
City has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, and H has an executory interest in fee simple.
The rule states that an executory interest in a property can only vest after the death of the last life in being, H. If H dies after the devise, City can use the land as a school for 100 years, but then stop. The executory interest becomes possessory in a grantee, devisee, or heir of H, almost 79 years after the perpetuities period has expired. This violates the rule and is void ab initio. The condition subsequent is considered part of the executory interest and is excluded from the conveyance, resulting in City receiving a fee simple absolute.
O conveys “to D for ten years.”
D has a term of years tenancy for a ten year term, while O retains a future interest. The words of limitation “for 10 years” convey a term of years to D. Because O granted an estate of lesser quantum, she retains a future interest (a reversion).
O conveys “to D for 200 years.”
Depending on the jurisdiction, D receives either a term of years or a fee simple. In general, the words of limitation “for 200 years” denote a term of years. Under this view, O retains a reversion because she did not convey her entire interest. However, some jurisdictions limit the duration of a term of years (e.g., to 99 years) and thus conclude that a grant for a longer period transfers a fee simple. In these states, D receives a fee simple absolute.
O conveys “to D for life, then to M and her heirs while the well continues to provide water.”
D has a life estate; M has a vested remainder in fee simple determinable; and O retains a possibility of reverter. The words of limitation “for life” identify D’s estate as a life estate. M holds a vested remainder, which will become possessory upon D’s death. The word of limitation “while” indicates that M will have a fee simple determinable when M gains possession. O retains a possibility of reverter, which automatically becomes possessory if the well stops providing water.
O to A for life, then to B and his heirs so long as liquor is not sold on the premises
O has a possibility of reverter
A has LE
B has vested remainder in fee simple determinable
O conveys “to D provided that if it ceases to be used as a church, then to G if he is living.”
D has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, and G has an executory interest in fee simple.
The rule states that an executory interest in a life in being cannot vest more than 21 years after the death of the last life in being. As G is one of the lives in being, the interest cannot be remotely vesting, making it valid.
O devises “to E and her heirs provided that E marries.”
Assuming E is not yet married, E has a future interest (an executory interest) and O’s heirs have a type of fee simple (a fee simple subject to an executory limitation).
O devises “to E for life, then to Z for life.”
E has a life estate; Z has a vested remainder in a life estate; and O’s heirs receive a vested remainder in fee simple. The words of limitation “for life” indicate that E gains a life estate. Z receives a future interest; the words of limitation “for life” denote that he will obtain a life estate when his future interest becomes possessory. O’s heirs also gain a future interest (a vested remainder) because O did not devise her entire estate (life estate + life estate < fee).
O conveys “to E and her heirs provided that alcohol is never served on the premises.”
E has a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, and O retains a right of entry. The words of limitation “provided that” create a defeasible fee simple in E. This defeasible fee is followed by a future interest in O, the grantor, which is a right of entry. If alcohol is ever served on the premises, O has the right to re-enter and reclaim possession.
O to A for life, then to B and his heirs, but if B dies before reaching the age of 21, to C and his heirs
O has nothing
A has LE
B has vested remainder subject to divestment
C has EI in fee simple
O devises “to my grandchildren who reach age 21.”
Assuming that O has no grandchildren who have reached age 21 by his death, then (1) O’s heirs receive a fee simple subject to an executory limitation and (2) the “grandchildren who reach 21” have an executory interest in fee simple.
The rule states that any living child or grandchild of an individual is a life in being at creation. If they die one year later, the executory interest cannot vest more than 21 years after their deaths. The interest is valid because all children are identified by the time of the individual's death, and no grandchild can reach age 21 more than 21 years after the last child's death.
O conveys “to F, my pet cat.”
O retains her fee simple. The law does not recognize conveyances to animals, regardless of the intent of the grantor. Valid grantees include, inter alia, individuals, corporations, partnerships, and trustees.
O conveys “to F for life.” F then conveys her interest “to Google, Inc.”
Initially, F received a life estate, as shown by the words of limitation “for life.” O retained a reversion because she did not convey her entire interest. When F conveyed her life estate to Google, Google obtained a life estate pur autre vie, a life estate measured by the life of F.
O conveys “to the First Baptist Church provided that the land is used as a church, then to Google, Inc.”
The First Baptist Church has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, and Google has an executory interest. The words “provided that” are words of limitation creating a defeasible fee simple in the First Baptist Church. Because the defeasible fee is followed by a future interest in a third party (Google) rather than in the grantor O, First Baptist has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Google’s future interest follows a defeasible fee in a transferee and is therefore an executory interest. If the land ceases to be used as a church, Google gains possession in fee simple absolute.
O to A for life, then if A dies unmarried to B and his heirs, otherwise to C for life
O has reversion
A has LE
B has contingent remainder in fee simple
C has alternative contingent remainder in LE
O conveys “to F for life, then to F’s grandchildren for life, then to K and his heirs.”
F has LE; F’s grandchildren have a contingent remainder in LE (assuming that no grandchildren have been born yet); and K has an indefeasibly vested remainder in fee simple.
The rule states that the contingent remainder in F's grandchildren may vest over 21 years after the death of the last life in being. If F had a child, X, 11 months after the conveyance, the future interest would vest over four years after the expiry of the perpetuities period (O, F, and K plus 21 years). This violates the rule and is void ab initio. Therefore, F has a life estate, and K has an indefeasibly vested remainder in fee simple. The rule applies to the possibility of the interest vesting outside the period, resulting in F having a life estate and K having an indefeasibly vested remainder in fee simple.