Ok, I said c) for #1 b/c this is one of those exceptions that Kurtz went over in class: the "dying without issue" exception. I at first wanted to say d), but there is no right of re-entry specified in the instrument. Anyway, since this is before 1500, under the indefinite failure of construction p.56 in the green book, I think the answer to #1 is c).
Anyone else with questions? I'm more than happy to share what I think the answers are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
thanks for the green book reference.
i've struggled w/ this one... isn't this just a question of whether a fee tail is legit in 1500?
It's a question of whether a shifting executory interest is valid before the statute of uses.
how are we understanding the impact of the statute of uses? more specifically, what do you understand to have been available prior to the statute of uses? we know that what was made legit are "equitable interests."
refer to slide 10 of the chapter 4 powerpoint. i think it makes it pretty clear that executory interests, both shifting and springing, were not legal estates before the s of u's.
does that seem right to you?
this is in response to your recent post, but it is not clear to me how what you said is true: that it's a question about shifting ex. interests. why not vested remainder?
Post a Comment