Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
the grumblings of a surly and burnt-out 1L
Blog Archive
-
▼
2004
(78)
-
▼
December
(22)
- Wrongful death and maritime law
- Bored Smored
- Holiday cheer
- The hazards of travel
- It's Over Now
- Catch me if you can
- The light at the end of the tunnel
- Tips and all that
- Cramming doesn't do it for me
- BTW
- #42 ?
- More property practice problems
- Practice property exam
- Boo to 7.5 hour finals!
- Take 2!
- Onward ho
- Passed the first run of the gauntlet
- On the verge of losing my test virginity
- Bless the Canadians
- The secret lives of our teachers
- Birthday Extravaganza!!!!
- Just breathe
-
▼
December
(22)
About Me
- hufflepuffer
- Blah blah blah...I always end up in Hufflepuff when I take any Harry Potter sorting test. I'm a pretty shy person.
8 comments:
I have d for #1 and a for #38...
Also, I have no idea what I'm doing, so that's probably not much help.
M.
I agree with number one, but not number 38. Why did you think a?
A lot of those questions are worded really poorly, and Kurtz even said that some of them didn't test well (which probably means that no one could tell what the hell he was even asking). There were a lot that there could have been at least 2 answers for, and there was no way of figuring out the right one without more facts.
-Anna
I said a) for #38 because I thought that the B's interest was destroyed since by the very nature of the instrument it would never become possessory immediately upon termination of the preceding estate (b/c he has to purchase from A's executor, and A's executor is not ascertained until A's death, so there is a period of time when B cannot possible possess as soon as A dies), and I also thought that D's executory interest was indeed valid according to the Rule Against Perpetuities. So that ruled out b) for me. What does anyone else think?
for #38, I thought c/3 was the answer.
B has a springing executory interest. So, destructability is not an issue. I don't think it violates the rule against perpetuities b/c B is a validating life and will or will not purchase w/in his own lifetime.
thoughts...?
Ok, how do we know whether B has an invalid contingent remainder (since there is only one transferee, it is always a condition precedent, which implies it is a contingent remainder) or a springing executory interest? If B has a springing executory interest that I agree that c/3 is the right answer.
In this case I want to say that B can't have a remainder of any kind b/c he is taking on the happening of a condition (buying whiteacre) instead of a limitation (the end of A's life estate).
But more convincingly and easier to understand, springing executory interests are what happens after a "gap". They divest grantors. So, after A's life estate ends then O gets it and once B purchases then he'll get it.
Basically for it to be a remainder B would have to become possessory at the end of the life estate.
Or at least that's what I think...
Thanks! I get it now, that makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking before.
Post a Comment